If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Alan... What is the root of resistance to top-posting? I'm asking in
a manner of curiosity. With my reader (Agent 2.0), it seems so much easier to read responses as they come up on the top portion of the message reading screen rather than scrolling down on the typically excessive quoting that seems to be common. I've already read the post that is being responded to and would rather not scroll down to a reply. Again, I'm asking in a cordial, inquiring manner and not trying to argue. If there is a logic behind top-posting that makes sense to me, I'll certainly change my ways. I'm a former sysop from before the common use of the Internet and likely developed a sensitivity to over-quoting as we were using long distance at 300 baud to hold Fidonet (and others) communicating costs to a minimum. My off-line readers and editors defaulted to top-posting so this also formed my habit, I suppose. On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:14:17 -0400, Alan Browne wrote: -Please don't top post replies. Cheers, Alan Craig Schroeder craig nospam craigschroeder com -Eschew Obfuscation- |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Craig Schroeder wrote:
Alan... What is the root of resistance to top-posting? I'm asking in a manner of curiosity. example: A: Because it makes reading the sequence of posts difficult Q: Why? A: No Q: Should I top post? That is the standard example. Two nettiquette "standards" applying to usenet postings: 1) snip away irrelevant text; 2) bottom post (and/or interleave the replies). With my reader (Agent 2.0), it seems so much easier to read responses as they come up on the top portion of the message reading screen rather than scrolling down on the typically excessive quoting that Snipping is also encouraged. Not everyone has seen the thread from the origin (and may not be able to if it has expired). So an "in-order" posting is easier to follow for people who jump into the thread. Snipping helps reduce the post to the essentials. From time to time somebody will state (like you): "my reader does..." but that is pretty irrelvant, the reader has to start somewhere, and the top is as good as any for a text message editor (mine optionally will go to the bottom). seems to be common. I've already read the post that is being responded to and would rather not scroll down to a reply. Again, I'm Again, not everyone jumping in has seen the origins of the thread. asking in a cordial, inquiring manner and not trying to argue. If there is a logic behind top-posting that makes sense to me, I'll certainly change my ways. Bearing in mind that 98% of usenet statistics are made up on the spot, I'd say about 80% or more prefer bottom posting as it is intrinsically easier to read. In my opinion, snipping and bottom posting are politeness issues ... so it seem polite to actually read all of the other persons post, polite to make an effort to snip, polite to make an effort to make the entire message readable. This politeness is for the collective good and pays off for everyone over time. Some (not all) who top post have selfish motives. "Last word" syndrome and placing their sig lines near the top of messages in a thread. The sig line in this case bearing links to their web page. That such people usually have little of value to contribute doesn't seem to hold them back in the least. I'm a former sysop from before the common use of the Internet and likely developed a sensitivity to over-quoting as we were using long distance at 300 baud to hold Fidonet (and others) communicating costs been there. to a minimum. My off-line readers and editors defaulted to top-posting so this also formed my habit, I suppose. For e-mail, I prefer top posted replies, but that is usually between a limited number of people for a limited duration. Usenet postings more often can run for a long time, so snip/bottom helps. I guess I picked up the snip/bottom habit very early in my usenet days. I admit that this is an *issue* for me to the point that I become an irritating bottom-post advocate. I believe that in the end it saves everyone else time when I invest my time in making something more readable; therefore the same courtesy is desired from others. Cheers, Alan -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Craig Schroeder wrote:
Alan... What is the root of resistance to top-posting? I'm asking in a manner of curiosity. example: A: Because it makes reading the sequence of posts difficult Q: Why? A: No Q: Should I top post? That is the standard example. Two nettiquette "standards" applying to usenet postings: 1) snip away irrelevant text; 2) bottom post (and/or interleave the replies). With my reader (Agent 2.0), it seems so much easier to read responses as they come up on the top portion of the message reading screen rather than scrolling down on the typically excessive quoting that Snipping is also encouraged. Not everyone has seen the thread from the origin (and may not be able to if it has expired). So an "in-order" posting is easier to follow for people who jump into the thread. Snipping helps reduce the post to the essentials. From time to time somebody will state (like you): "my reader does..." but that is pretty irrelvant, the reader has to start somewhere, and the top is as good as any for a text message editor (mine optionally will go to the bottom). seems to be common. I've already read the post that is being responded to and would rather not scroll down to a reply. Again, I'm Again, not everyone jumping in has seen the origins of the thread. asking in a cordial, inquiring manner and not trying to argue. If there is a logic behind top-posting that makes sense to me, I'll certainly change my ways. Bearing in mind that 98% of usenet statistics are made up on the spot, I'd say about 80% or more prefer bottom posting as it is intrinsically easier to read. In my opinion, snipping and bottom posting are politeness issues ... so it seem polite to actually read all of the other persons post, polite to make an effort to snip, polite to make an effort to make the entire message readable. This politeness is for the collective good and pays off for everyone over time. Some (not all) who top post have selfish motives. "Last word" syndrome and placing their sig lines near the top of messages in a thread. The sig line in this case bearing links to their web page. That such people usually have little of value to contribute doesn't seem to hold them back in the least. I'm a former sysop from before the common use of the Internet and likely developed a sensitivity to over-quoting as we were using long distance at 300 baud to hold Fidonet (and others) communicating costs been there. to a minimum. My off-line readers and editors defaulted to top-posting so this also formed my habit, I suppose. For e-mail, I prefer top posted replies, but that is usually between a limited number of people for a limited duration. Usenet postings more often can run for a long time, so snip/bottom helps. I guess I picked up the snip/bottom habit very early in my usenet days. I admit that this is an *issue* for me to the point that I become an irritating bottom-post advocate. I believe that in the end it saves everyone else time when I invest my time in making something more readable; therefore the same courtesy is desired from others. Cheers, Alan -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Craig Schroeder wrote:
Alan... What is the root of resistance to top-posting? I'm asking in a manner of curiosity. example: A: Because it makes reading the sequence of posts difficult Q: Why? A: No Q: Should I top post? That is the standard example. Two nettiquette "standards" applying to usenet postings: 1) snip away irrelevant text; 2) bottom post (and/or interleave the replies). With my reader (Agent 2.0), it seems so much easier to read responses as they come up on the top portion of the message reading screen rather than scrolling down on the typically excessive quoting that Snipping is also encouraged. Not everyone has seen the thread from the origin (and may not be able to if it has expired). So an "in-order" posting is easier to follow for people who jump into the thread. Snipping helps reduce the post to the essentials. From time to time somebody will state (like you): "my reader does..." but that is pretty irrelvant, the reader has to start somewhere, and the top is as good as any for a text message editor (mine optionally will go to the bottom). seems to be common. I've already read the post that is being responded to and would rather not scroll down to a reply. Again, I'm Again, not everyone jumping in has seen the origins of the thread. asking in a cordial, inquiring manner and not trying to argue. If there is a logic behind top-posting that makes sense to me, I'll certainly change my ways. Bearing in mind that 98% of usenet statistics are made up on the spot, I'd say about 80% or more prefer bottom posting as it is intrinsically easier to read. In my opinion, snipping and bottom posting are politeness issues ... so it seem polite to actually read all of the other persons post, polite to make an effort to snip, polite to make an effort to make the entire message readable. This politeness is for the collective good and pays off for everyone over time. Some (not all) who top post have selfish motives. "Last word" syndrome and placing their sig lines near the top of messages in a thread. The sig line in this case bearing links to their web page. That such people usually have little of value to contribute doesn't seem to hold them back in the least. I'm a former sysop from before the common use of the Internet and likely developed a sensitivity to over-quoting as we were using long distance at 300 baud to hold Fidonet (and others) communicating costs been there. to a minimum. My off-line readers and editors defaulted to top-posting so this also formed my habit, I suppose. For e-mail, I prefer top posted replies, but that is usually between a limited number of people for a limited duration. Usenet postings more often can run for a long time, so snip/bottom helps. I guess I picked up the snip/bottom habit very early in my usenet days. I admit that this is an *issue* for me to the point that I become an irritating bottom-post advocate. I believe that in the end it saves everyone else time when I invest my time in making something more readable; therefore the same courtesy is desired from others. Cheers, Alan -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Craig Schroeder wrote:
Alan... What is the root of resistance to top-posting? I'm asking in a manner of curiosity. example: A: Because it makes reading the sequence of posts difficult Q: Why? A: No Q: Should I top post? That is the standard example. Two nettiquette "standards" applying to usenet postings: 1) snip away irrelevant text; 2) bottom post (and/or interleave the replies). With my reader (Agent 2.0), it seems so much easier to read responses as they come up on the top portion of the message reading screen rather than scrolling down on the typically excessive quoting that Snipping is also encouraged. Not everyone has seen the thread from the origin (and may not be able to if it has expired). So an "in-order" posting is easier to follow for people who jump into the thread. Snipping helps reduce the post to the essentials. From time to time somebody will state (like you): "my reader does..." but that is pretty irrelvant, the reader has to start somewhere, and the top is as good as any for a text message editor (mine optionally will go to the bottom). seems to be common. I've already read the post that is being responded to and would rather not scroll down to a reply. Again, I'm Again, not everyone jumping in has seen the origins of the thread. asking in a cordial, inquiring manner and not trying to argue. If there is a logic behind top-posting that makes sense to me, I'll certainly change my ways. Bearing in mind that 98% of usenet statistics are made up on the spot, I'd say about 80% or more prefer bottom posting as it is intrinsically easier to read. In my opinion, snipping and bottom posting are politeness issues ... so it seem polite to actually read all of the other persons post, polite to make an effort to snip, polite to make an effort to make the entire message readable. This politeness is for the collective good and pays off for everyone over time. Some (not all) who top post have selfish motives. "Last word" syndrome and placing their sig lines near the top of messages in a thread. The sig line in this case bearing links to their web page. That such people usually have little of value to contribute doesn't seem to hold them back in the least. I'm a former sysop from before the common use of the Internet and likely developed a sensitivity to over-quoting as we were using long distance at 300 baud to hold Fidonet (and others) communicating costs been there. to a minimum. My off-line readers and editors defaulted to top-posting so this also formed my habit, I suppose. For e-mail, I prefer top posted replies, but that is usually between a limited number of people for a limited duration. Usenet postings more often can run for a long time, so snip/bottom helps. I guess I picked up the snip/bottom habit very early in my usenet days. I admit that this is an *issue* for me to the point that I become an irritating bottom-post advocate. I believe that in the end it saves everyone else time when I invest my time in making something more readable; therefore the same courtesy is desired from others. Cheers, Alan -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Browne wrote:
[ OT - why not top post ] Again, not everyone jumping in has seen the origins of the thread. Not only that, but Usenet does not have guaranteed delivery, and posts are time-ordered by datestamp, which is often inaccurate due to shoddy PC clocking, so giving top-context also helps in those cases. In my opinion, snipping and bottom posting are politeness issues ... Failure to snip adequately is worse than bottom posting in my mind, but Alan seldom complains about lack of snippage. Hey, getting back on topic, has anybody seen Kodak Ultra Color 400 for sale at department stores for a really great price? I got some at Target for $8.99 a 36x3-pack, same price as for High Definition 400 in a 24x3-pack! Getting back on the Velvia 50 topic, I hope that Fuji will eventually fiddle with Velvia 100 non-F (Japan only) so Velvia 50 shooters are happy with it, then discontinue Velvia 50. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Browne wrote:
[ OT - why not top post ] Again, not everyone jumping in has seen the origins of the thread. Not only that, but Usenet does not have guaranteed delivery, and posts are time-ordered by datestamp, which is often inaccurate due to shoddy PC clocking, so giving top-context also helps in those cases. In my opinion, snipping and bottom posting are politeness issues ... Failure to snip adequately is worse than bottom posting in my mind, but Alan seldom complains about lack of snippage. Hey, getting back on topic, has anybody seen Kodak Ultra Color 400 for sale at department stores for a really great price? I got some at Target for $8.99 a 36x3-pack, same price as for High Definition 400 in a 24x3-pack! Getting back on the Velvia 50 topic, I hope that Fuji will eventually fiddle with Velvia 100 non-F (Japan only) so Velvia 50 shooters are happy with it, then discontinue Velvia 50. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Browne wrote:
[ OT - why not top post ] Again, not everyone jumping in has seen the origins of the thread. Not only that, but Usenet does not have guaranteed delivery, and posts are time-ordered by datestamp, which is often inaccurate due to shoddy PC clocking, so giving top-context also helps in those cases. In my opinion, snipping and bottom posting are politeness issues ... Failure to snip adequately is worse than bottom posting in my mind, but Alan seldom complains about lack of snippage. Hey, getting back on topic, has anybody seen Kodak Ultra Color 400 for sale at department stores for a really great price? I got some at Target for $8.99 a 36x3-pack, same price as for High Definition 400 in a 24x3-pack! Getting back on the Velvia 50 topic, I hope that Fuji will eventually fiddle with Velvia 100 non-F (Japan only) so Velvia 50 shooters are happy with it, then discontinue Velvia 50. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Browne wrote:
[ OT - why not top post ] Again, not everyone jumping in has seen the origins of the thread. Not only that, but Usenet does not have guaranteed delivery, and posts are time-ordered by datestamp, which is often inaccurate due to shoddy PC clocking, so giving top-context also helps in those cases. In my opinion, snipping and bottom posting are politeness issues ... Failure to snip adequately is worse than bottom posting in my mind, but Alan seldom complains about lack of snippage. Hey, getting back on topic, has anybody seen Kodak Ultra Color 400 for sale at department stores for a really great price? I got some at Target for $8.99 a 36x3-pack, same price as for High Definition 400 in a 24x3-pack! Getting back on the Velvia 50 topic, I hope that Fuji will eventually fiddle with Velvia 100 non-F (Japan only) so Velvia 50 shooters are happy with it, then discontinue Velvia 50. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Tuthill wrote:
Alan seldom complains about lack of snippage. You're right. I'll now make it a cause to be championed... Well, off to the woods with my humble 35mm (renting a 'blad has really screwed me up). Cheers, Alan -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs | KM | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 724 | December 7th 04 10:58 AM |
Velvia 100 compensation | Charles Pezeshki | Large Format Photography Equipment | 14 | August 26th 04 08:23 PM |
Velvia 100F | dan | Film & Labs | 2 | June 29th 04 09:47 PM |
velvia 100F [question] | dan | 35mm Photo Equipment | 6 | June 28th 04 03:46 AM |
5 Megapixels vs Velvia vs Kodachrome + Microscope Views | Roger and Cathy Musgrove | Film & Labs | 0 | October 12th 03 02:16 AM |