Request for Responders to Posts
 

Is it possible for replies to posters to arrange for their replies to appear
at the top, rather than after the original message.

In my newsreader (Windows Mail) you can disable the options-advanced-
Compose reply at bottom of original message



--

Regards,
Nigel

Request for Responders to Posts
 

"Nigel" wrote in message
...
Is it possible for replies to posters to arrange for their replies to
appear at the top, rather than after the original message.

In my newsreader (Windows Mail) you can disable the options-advanced-
Compose reply at bottom of original message

Regards,
Nigel


A sore subject, my friend. Usenet has long had a standard of bottom
posting, and in my view that's more logical anyway. If I'm going to read a
thread, I want to start at the beginning. Unfortunately there's no way to
a) force people to snip and edit preceeding text appropriately, or b) force
people to bottom post, ergo the standard is hard to enforce and rarely
practiced. I, for one, will always bottom post.

-gk-

Request for Responders to Posts
 

This is a long established group with a large archive where the clearly
established convention is to top post. Fortunately at least 90% of
responders are considerate enough to adhere to the convention.

Regards,
Peter T


"Sandusky" wrote in message
...

"Nigel" wrote in message
...
Is it possible for replies to posters to arrange for their replies to
appear at the top, rather than after the original message.

In my newsreader (Windows Mail) you can disable the options-advanced-
Compose reply at bottom of original message

Regards,
Nigel


A sore subject, my friend. Usenet has long had a standard of bottom
posting, and in my view that's more logical anyway. If I'm going to read
a
thread, I want to start at the beginning. Unfortunately there's no way to
a) force people to snip and edit preceeding text appropriately, or b)
force
people to bottom post, ergo the standard is hard to enforce and rarely
practiced. I, for one, will always bottom post.

-gk-

Request for Responders to Posts
 

I agree Peter T, not sure what the first responder said as by the time I had
read my original post I lost interest!

--

Regards,
Nigel




"Peter T" <peter_t@discussions wrote in message
...
This is a long established group with a large archive where the clearly
established convention is to top post. Fortunately at least 90% of
responders are considerate enough to adhere to the convention.

Regards,
Peter T


"Sandusky" wrote in message
...

"Nigel" wrote in message
...
Is it possible for replies to posters to arrange for their replies to
appear at the top, rather than after the original message.

In my newsreader (Windows Mail) you can disable the options-advanced-
Compose reply at bottom of original message

Regards,
Nigel


A sore subject, my friend. Usenet has long had a standard of bottom
posting, and in my view that's more logical anyway. If I'm going to read
a
thread, I want to start at the beginning. Unfortunately there's no way
to
a) force people to snip and edit preceeding text appropriately, or b)
force
people to bottom post, ergo the standard is hard to enforce and rarely
practiced. I, for one, will always bottom post.

-gk-

Request for Responders to Posts
 

On Jan 30, 7:23*am, "Nigel" wrote:
"Peter T" <peter_t@discussions wrote:
This is a long established group with a large archive where the
clearly established convention is to top post.

I agree Peter T, not sure what the first responder said as by the
time I had read my original post I lost interest!

You are talking about two different things. There is nothing wrong
with so-called "bottom posting" if the writer exercises good judgment
about excerpting. I'm sure had no trouble finding my response and
understanding what I am responding to exactly, Nigel. (If you did,
you are a lazier reader than I am.)

This is a long and tired debate. The fact is: top-posting is often
considered poor netiquette. I must admit: I don't know exactly why.
I suspect because it might often be difficult to know exactly what he
responder is commenting on. Again, that is just due to poor style.
Nonetheless, one moderated newsgroup rejects submissions that are top-
posted.

Personally, I do not object to either form when used judiciously; and
I object to both forms when used poorly. In fact, sometimes I do
both(!). That is, I intersperse my comments among well-selected
excerpts, and at the end, I attach a complete copy of the original
article, especially when it contains a lot of relevant data or a
complete program.

To each his own. Nigel, no one is requiring you to read or respond to
articles whose style (or content) you do not like. And perhaps that
is the best way to coerce people to do it your way. If it were true
that "everyone" prefers top-posting and if "everyone" did not respond
to bottom-posted articles, the latter people would feel ignored and
eventually leave. Classic Darwinism.

(But expect you will find that life goes on just fine.)

Request for Responders to Posts
 

Most bottom posters snip. Unfortunately, "newbie" bottom posters leave the
entire thread, replies, etc. intact, forcing someone to
scroll..scroll..scroll, if that's something that even interests the
scroller. A lot of times I have seen red herrings a the end of long posts.
After thousands of words, at the bottom of the post, is a single word
"Thanks", or something else that makes me wonder what all the stuff above is
doing there.

--
Tim Zych
SF, CA

"Sandusky" wrote in message
...

"Nigel" wrote in message
...
Is it possible for replies to posters to arrange for their replies to
appear at the top, rather than after the original message.

In my newsreader (Windows Mail) you can disable the options-advanced-
Compose reply at bottom of original message

Regards,
Nigel


A sore subject, my friend. Usenet has long had a standard of bottom
posting, and in my view that's more logical anyway. If I'm going to read
a thread, I want to start at the beginning. Unfortunately there's no way
to a) force people to snip and edit preceeding text appropriately, or b)
force people to bottom post, ergo the standard is hard to enforce and
rarely practiced. I, for one, will always bottom post.

-gk-

Request for Responders to Posts
 

On Jan 30, 4:22*am, "Nigel" wrote:
Is it possible for replies to posters to arrange for their replies to
appear at the top, rather than after the original message.

The following expresses my feelings about top posting, taken from the
signature in one of Stan Brown's postings:

A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top posting.
Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

As I noted in an earlier response in this thread, the problem some
people have with bottom posting is that some (other) people fail to
prudently excerpt the comments they are responding to. I do agree
that if one includes very large parts (or all) of a previous posting
(long examples, data, etc), that belongs after the new response.

Request for Responders to Posts
 

I vote for top-posting.
1) It is the custom for these groups.
2) I think it an enlightened discovery for efficient scanning.
3) In either case, prudent pruning of the thread is polite.

joeu2004 wrote:
Th fllwng xprsss my flngs bt tp pstng, tkn frm th
sgntr n n f Stn Brwn's pstngs:

: Myb bcs sm ppl r t nnyd by tp pstng.
Q: Why d i nt gt n nswr t my qstn(s)?
: Bcs t msss p th rdr n whch ppl nrmlly rd txt.
Q: Why s tp-pstng sch a bd thng?

s i ntd n n rlr rspns n ths thrd, th prblm sm
ppl hv wth bttm pstng s tht sm (thr) ppl fl t
prdntly xcrpt th cmmnts thy r rspndng t. i d gr
tht f n nclds vry lrg prts (r ll) f prvs pstng
(lng xmpls, dt, tc), tht blngs ftr th nw rspns.

On Jan 30, 4:22*am, "Nigel" wrote:
Is it possible for replies to posters to arrange for their replies to
appear at the top, rather than after the original message.