Hi.
I started read this group recently.
I have one stupid question :)
Why reply is almost always above message with question instead of under it?
Is this a rule for this group? I want to be (accord)[1] ....

[1] i don't know how to write it in English ;)

regards
tomek

Because it reads better that way, regardless of what bottom-posters may
shriek.

--
HTH

Bob

(there's no email, no snail mail, but somewhere should be gmail in my addy)

"tomek gomek" wrote in message
...
Hi.
I started read this group recently.
I have one stupid question :)
Why reply is almost always above message with question instead of under
it?
Is this a rule for this group? I want to be (accord)[1] ....

[1] i don't know how to write it in English ;)
regards
tomek

Most people tend to top-post (i.e. put their post above the previous
ones), though I'm not sure that this is a rule, as other people bottom-
post (which makes more sense when you are reading it, but for long
threads it can take some time to scroll down to the latest posting
with this approach).

[1] I think you want the word comply, or to be in compliance.

As another poster (Earl?) says: "When in Rome ..." (do as the Romans
do)

Hope this helps.

Pete

On Jul 25, 1:20 pm, "tomek gomek" wrote:
Hi.
I started read this group recently.
I have one stupid question :)
Why reply is almost always above message with question instead of under it?
Is this a rule for this group? I want to be (accord)[1] ....

[1] i don't know how to write it in English ;)

regards
tomek

thanks.
"comply" is that word :)
ok, i'll do as the Romans do if i'll be able to help someone

tomek

ps. on pl.* groups top-posting is not (good looking ???) that's what i ask
for it

Uzytkownik "Pete_UK" napisal w wiadomosci
oups.com...
Most people tend to top-post (i.e. put their post above the previous
ones), though I'm not sure that this is a rule, as other people bottom-
post (which makes more sense when you are reading it, but for long
threads it can take some time to scroll down to the latest posting
with this approach).

[1] I think you want the word comply, or to be in compliance.

As another poster (Earl?) says: "When in Rome ..." (do as the Romans
do)

Hope this helps.

Pete

On Jul 25, 1:20 pm, "tomek gomek" wrote:
Hi.
I started read this group recently.
I have one stupid question :)
Why reply is almost always above message with question instead of under
it?
Is this a rule for this group? I want to be (accord)[1] ....

[1] i don't know how to write it in English ;)

regards
tomek

RULE

--
Don Guillett
Microsoft MVP Excel
SalesAid Software

"tomek gomek" wrote in message
...
Hi.
I started read this group recently.
I have one stupid question :)
Why reply is almost always above message with question instead of under
it?
Is this a rule for this group? I want to be (accord)[1] ....

[1] i don't know how to write it in English ;)
regards
tomek

I had to access this site via Google groups a while back and found that it
defaults to bottom posting. I generally post via the microsoft.com site and
it defaults to top posting.

"Bob Phillips" wrote:

Because it reads better that way, regardless of what bottom-posters may
shriek.

--
HTH

Bob

(there's no email, no snail mail, but somewhere should be gmail in my addy)

"tomek gomek" wrote in message
...
Hi.
I started read this group recently.
I have one stupid question :)
Why reply is almost always above message with question instead of under
it?
Is this a rule for this group? I want to be (accord)[1] ....

[1] i don't know how to write it in English ;)
regards
tomek

"Bob Phillips" wrote...
Because it reads better that way, regardless of what bottom-posters may
shriek.
....

Only if one could assume (1) top posters just weren't so darn lazy, and (2)
top posters really understood how newsgroups should work.

Since Outlook Express and most of the web-based newsgroup portals default to
top posting, that's pretty much the reason why it's so common in microsoft.*
newsgroups. Occam's razor: laziness is the reason.

"Pete_UK" wrote...
....
. . . but for long
threads it can take some time to scroll down to the latest posting
with this approach).
....


Only because too many people are ignorant of the nettiquette REQUIREMENT for
quoting only previous text relevant to their response. The implied message
is their time/convenience is much more valuable than anyone else's.

"Don Guillett" wrote...
RULE

Must be an obscure acronym.

Lazy is good

--
Don Guillett
Microsoft MVP Excel
SalesAid Software

"Harlan Grove" wrote in message
...
"Bob Phillips" wrote...
Because it reads better that way, regardless of what bottom-posters may
shriek.
...

Only if one could assume (1) top posters just weren't so darn lazy, and
(2) top posters really understood how newsgroups should work.

Since Outlook Express and most of the web-based newsgroup portals default
to top posting, that's pretty much the reason why it's so common in
microsoft.* newsgroups. Occam's razor: laziness is the reason.

It is........................

--
Don Guillett
Microsoft MVP Excel
SalesAid Software

"Harlan Grove" wrote in message
...
"Don Guillett" wrote...
RULE

Must be an obscure acronym.

At least one person in these news groups will not respond to your post if it is
bottom posted.

If you do bottom post, try to snip off any irrelevant bits above your post but
maintain enough for clarity.


Gord Dibben MS Excel MVP


On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:54:59 +0200, "tomek gomek"
wrote:

thanks.
"comply" is that word :)
ok, i'll do as the Romans do if i'll be able to help someone

tomek

ps. on pl.* groups top-posting is not (good looking ???) that's what i ask
for it

Uzytkownik "Pete_UK" napisal w wiadomosci
roups.com...
Most people tend to top-post (i.e. put their post above the previous
ones), though I'm not sure that this is a rule, as other people bottom-
post (which makes more sense when you are reading it, but for long
threads it can take some time to scroll down to the latest posting
with this approach).

[1] I think you want the word comply, or to be in compliance.

As another poster (Earl?) says: "When in Rome ..." (do as the Romans
do)

Hope this helps.

Pete

On Jul 25, 1:20 pm, "tomek gomek" wrote:
Hi.
I started read this group recently.
I have one stupid question :)
Why reply is almost always above message with question instead of under
it?
Is this a rule for this group? I want to be (accord)[1] ....

[1] i don't know how to write it in English ;)

regards
tomek

"Don Guillett" wrote...
Lazy is good

No doubt you say that to your kids just before chore time.

It doesn't matter to me one way or the other but it gets real ugly when one
top posts a reply and then the OP bottom posts their reply.

--
Biff
Microsoft Excel MVP


"Bob Phillips" wrote in message
...
Because it reads better that way, regardless of what bottom-posters may
shriek.

--
HTH

Bob

(there's no email, no snail mail, but somewhere should be gmail in my
addy)

"tomek gomek" wrote in message
...
Hi.
I started read this group recently.
I have one stupid question :)
Why reply is almost always above message with question instead of under
it?
Is this a rule for this group? I want to be (accord)[1] ....

[1] i don't know how to write it in English ;)
regards
tomek

"Don Guillett" wrote...
It is........................

Lemme guess, Rudely, Unabashedly Laziness Embodied?

Gord Dibben <gorddibbATshawDOTca wrote...
At least one person in these news groups will not respond to your
post if it is bottom posted.

Probably no great loss.

If you do bottom post, try to snip off any irrelevant bits above
your post but maintain enough for clarity.
....

Whereas top posters will continue to leave the entire preceding thread
quoted in their responses like grossly overgrown signatures. I
ventured a guess a few years ago that about 75% of the aggregate text
posted in the Excel newsgroups is unsnipped quotes. It's probably more
by now. No one cares because it the ISPs problem to store it all, and
fast internet connections means it's painless to download so much
cruft.

Are we talking about Harlan?

--
Don Guillett
Microsoft MVP Excel
SalesAid Software

"Harlan Grove" wrote in message
oups.com...
"Don Guillett" wrote...
It is........................

Lemme guess, Rudely, Unabashedly Laziness Embodied?

"Don Guillett" wrote...
Are we talking about Harlan?

Rude, yes. Lazy, no, at least not in comparison with you top posters.

"Harlan Grove" wrote in message
ps.com...
Gord Dibben <gorddibbATshawDOTca wrote...

If you do bottom post, try to snip off any irrelevant bits above
your post but maintain enough for clarity.
...

Whereas top posters will continue to leave the entire preceding thread
quoted in their responses like grossly overgrown signatures. I
ventured a guess a few years ago that about 75% of the aggregate text
posted in the Excel newsgroups is unsnipped quotes. It's probably more
by now. No one cares because it the ISPs problem to store it all, and
fast internet connections means it's painless to download so much
cruft.

Exactly ... no great problem.

Top-posting is no lazy per se Harlan.

As I keep pointing out to bottom-poster evangelists, my experience of people
who use NGs regularly (and let's be honest, to those that don't, the
argument is immaterial) is that they follow a thread by monitoring it,
reading responses as they come in, just as you are doing here. As such, when
a response comes in, I don't want to have to scroll through a whole heap of
responses, counter responses etc. that I have already read. I want to get to
the meat of what is being said, and by top-posting, that aids me enormously.
If I do need to refer back, I can easily scroll down, or read the previous
postings. I see no merits in bottom posting at all.

As far as I can tell, most of your argument relates to not snipping posts,
just adding a response to the responses already accumulated in the thread to
date. This is not a peculiarity of a top-posting, it is just as easy to do
in bottom posting. I agree with your dismay at this, but I own up to doing
it myself, and quite honestly top-posting makes it almost irrelevant (even
helpful if you do want to look back in the thread). But guess what, you do
it yourself, nobody is perfect.


--
HTH

Bob

(there's no email, no snail mail, but somewhere should be gmail in my addy)

"Harlan Grove" wrote in message
ups.com...
"Don Guillett" wrote...
Are we talking about Harlan?

Rude, yes. Lazy, no, at least not in comparison with you top posters.

"Bob Phillips" wrote...
"Harlan Grove" wrote...
....
Whereas top posters will continue to leave the entire preceding thread
quoted in their responses like grossly overgrown signatures. . . .
....
. . . No one cares because it the ISPs problem to store it all, and
fast internet connections means it's painless to download so much
cruft.

Exactly ... no great problem.

Yes, I could figure you didn't care. No problem until the ISPs set limits,
which might never happen.

Since replying in context usually isn't important to you, why not take
advantage of Outlook Express's (the newsreader you used to post your message
to which this is a response) setting that dispenses with including original
messages? Tools Options, Send tab, uncheck Include message in reply.

"Bob Phillips" wrote...
Top-posting is no lazy per se Harlan.

Stipulated. But the lack of snipping the quoted preceding thread IS lazy.


As I keep pointing out to bottom-poster evangelists, my experience of
people who use NGs regularly (and let's be honest, to those that don't,
the argument is immaterial) is that they follow a thread by monitoring it,
reading responses as they come in, just as you are doing here. As such,
when a response comes in, I don't want to have to scroll through a whole
heap of responses, counter responses etc. that I have already read. I want
to get to the meat of what is being said, and by top-posting, that aids me
enormously. . . .

So don't quote anything. It's a simple Outlook Express setting. With nothing
quoted, you could adopt the logically valid (if meaningless) position that
you're both top-posting and bottom-posting.

And it's quite clear the universe of newsgroups you follow is pretty
limited. Granted top-posting is most common in the Office newsgroups, but
it's infrequent in the microsoft.* programming language and Windows
newsgroups, and rarer still in true USENET newsgroups. What should one make
of that? That people who only know how to use Office can't figure out how to
use newsgroups and/or newsreaders properly? Certainly a possibility.

. . . If I do need to refer back, I can easily scroll down, or read the
previous postings. I see no merits in bottom posting at all.

Context is everything. So, like small children, instant gratification is
essential for you?


As far as I can tell, most of your argument relates to not snipping posts,
just adding a response to the responses already accumulated in the thread
to date. This is not a peculiarity of a top-posting, it is just as easy to
do in bottom posting.

Just as EASY, perhaps. Just as COMMON?

While there are isolated instances of bottom-posters failing to snip
anything from the full quoted preceding thread, snipping is far more
commonly done by bottom-posters than top-posters.

I agree with your dismay at this, but I own up to doing it myself, and
quite honestly top-posting makes it almost irrelevant (even helpful if you
do want to look back in the thread). . . .

Helpful how? The response is out of context.

But guess what, you do it yourself, nobody is perfect.

Yes, when the message to which I'm replying is brief, I don't bother
snipping. Provide a link to a thread in which I responded to a message of 20
or more lines without snipping some of it.

None of us may be perfect, but some of us are much closer to it than others.

See that is the big problem with you Harlan. You can't just make your point
objectively, you have to resort to petty insults. It makes so many of your
posts unreadable, including this one which I stopped once it was clear that
you feel the need to insult anyone who disagrees with you.

If you were as principled as you make out, you would ignore trolls like
Aaron Kemp, you wouldn't bother answering every post, you would resort to
insults with everybody who doesn't roll over and die in the face of your
tirades. But you are not, you do, and you always will.


"Harlan Grove" wrote in message
...
"Bob Phillips" wrote...
Top-posting is no lazy per se Harlan.

Stipulated. But the lack of snipping the quoted preceding thread IS lazy.


As I keep pointing out to bottom-poster evangelists, my experience of
people who use NGs regularly (and let's be honest, to those that don't,
the argument is immaterial) is that they follow a thread by monitoring it,
reading responses as they come in, just as you are doing here. As such,
when a response comes in, I don't want to have to scroll through a whole
heap of responses, counter responses etc. that I have already read. I want
to get to the meat of what is being said, and by top-posting, that aids me
enormously. . . .

So don't quote anything. It's a simple Outlook Express setting. With
nothing quoted, you could adopt the logically valid (if meaningless)
position that you're both top-posting and bottom-posting.

And it's quite clear the universe of newsgroups you follow is pretty
limited. Granted top-posting is most common in the Office newsgroups, but
it's infrequent in the microsoft.* programming language and Windows
newsgroups, and rarer still in true USENET newsgroups. What should one
make of that? That people who only know how to use Office can't figure out
how to use newsgroups and/or newsreaders properly? Certainly a
possibility.

. . . If I do need to refer back, I can easily scroll down, or read the
previous postings. I see no merits in bottom posting at all.

Context is everything. So, like small children, instant gratification is
essential for you?


As far as I can tell, most of your argument relates to not snipping posts,
just adding a response to the responses already accumulated in the thread
to date. This is not a peculiarity of a top-posting, it is just as easy to
do in bottom posting.

Just as EASY, perhaps. Just as COMMON?

While there are isolated instances of bottom-posters failing to snip
anything from the full quoted preceding thread, snipping is far more
commonly done by bottom-posters than top-posters.

I agree with your dismay at this, but I own up to doing it myself, and
quite honestly top-posting makes it almost irrelevant (even helpful if you
do want to look back in the thread). . . .

Helpful how? The response is out of context.

But guess what, you do it yourself, nobody is perfect.

Yes, when the message to which I'm replying is brief, I don't bother
snipping. Provide a link to a thread in which I responded to a message of
20 or more lines without snipping some of it.

None of us may be perfect, but some of us are much closer to it than
others.

"Bob Phillips" wrote...
See that is the big problem with you Harlan. You can't just make
your point objectively, you have to resort to petty insults. . . .
....

To me you began the insults this time around by claiming I was
inconsistent about snipping. From my perspective, that's an insult.

Not that this proves anything, but if you think I'm insulting, try top-
posting in newsgroups in which bottom-positing is adamantly
recommended. That's the environment in which I learned how to post.

If you were as principled as you make out, you would ignore trolls
like Aaron Kemp, . . .

Nah!

As I've stated in those threads, it's entertainment. To each his own.

. . . you wouldn't bother answering every post, . . .

I don't. There are several branches in which I let him have the last
word. He's not wrong about everything.

. . . you would resort to insults with everybody who doesn't roll
over and die in the face of your tirades. . . .
....

You meant wouldn't.

I START very few arguments. I intend to FINISH any I join.

There's an objective measure in re posting: snipping unnecessary bits
from the quoted previous thread. At the very least there's no
compelling need for multiple copies of the same respondents'
signatures, but few if any top posters remove even those. Laziness is
the exclusive guide to that aspect of top-posting 'style'. You can
claim it's expedient, but you won't convince me it's a virtue.

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:47:37 +0100 from Bob Phillips
:
I don't want to have to scroll through a whole heap of
responses, counter responses etc. that I have already read.

And if people would bother to trim their quotes, you wouldn't have
to.

(like this)
--
"The internet is famously powered by the twin engines of
bitterness and contempt." -- Nathan Rabin, /The Onion/
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/