[blake murphy[_2_]]

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 23:51:22 -0800, sf wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 19:44:22 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> sf > wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:32:27 -0600, Michel Boucher
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> >sf > wrote in newsbu9l5hfv1h8fq1trhgqobnmdsm1512ua6@
>>> >4ax.com:
>>> >
>>> >> Try figuring it out in a long, messy thread. If bottom posting is the
>>> >> rfc rule, then another rule should be that text be trimmed enough to
>>> >> prevent scrolling.
>>> >
>>> >To wit the point about...wait for it...*editing*.
>>>
>>> Which bottom posters often neglect to do.
>>
>>Then perhaps you should consider killfiling them?
>>
>>Having to scroll down through 1000 lines to read a "me too" is just
>>another reminder for a killfile entry.
>
> LOL! That equates to another vote for top posting.

i just don't like top posting because my first reaction is 'what were we
talking about again?' (especially when threads drift, as they almost
invariably do.)

with a bottom post, you skim what went before and usually are oriented to
what's being said.

in any case, people could edit better (including taking care with
attributions), but it's not a major source of irritation for me.

your pal,
blake

[sf[_9_]]

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:56:10 -0500, blake murphy
> wrote:

>i just don't like top posting because my first reaction is 'what were we
>talking about again?' (especially when threads drift, as they almost
>invariably do.)
>
>with a bottom post, you skim what went before and usually are oriented to
>what's being said.

I feel the exact opposite. I'll scroll down if I need a reminder and
I don't want to rehash the topic before I get to a new response.
>
>in any case, people could edit better (including taking care with
>attributions), but it's not a major source of irritation for me.

It's a major problem for me. Obviously they have no idea who said
what. If that's the case, then just cut out everything except what
you're responding to.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

[blake murphy[_2_]]

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:42:29 -0800, sf wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:56:10 -0500, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>>i just don't like top posting because my first reaction is 'what were we
>>talking about again?' (especially when threads drift, as they almost
>>invariably do.)
>>
>>with a bottom post, you skim what went before and usually are oriented to
>>what's being said.
>
> I feel the exact opposite. I'll scroll down if I need a reminder and
> I don't want to rehash the topic before I get to a new response.
>>
>>in any case, people could edit better (including taking care with
>>attributions), but it's not a major source of irritation for me.
>
> It's a major problem for me. Obviously they have no idea who said
> what. If that's the case, then just cut out everything except what
> you're responding to.

well, all i can say is that you're swimming against the tide, here.

your pal,
blake

[sf[_9_]]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:53:41 -0500, blake murphy
> wrote:

>well, all i can say is that you're swimming against the tide, here.

More like spitting in the wind. It's a thankless job, but somebody
has to do it.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

[Michel Boucher[_3_]]

sf > wrote in news:l2oel55b8onjvsu98luucvq53l8hrbb1l4@
4ax.com:

>>well, all i can say is that you're swimming against the tide, here.
>
> More like spitting in the wind. It's a thankless job, but somebody
> has to do it.

Why not save yourself the aggro. No one has to do it, especially as it
promotes the use of questionable justifications :-)

Unlax, already.

--

I have nothing against God.
It's his fan club I can't stand.

spotted on a poster

[Dan Abel]

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:42:29 -0800, sf wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:56:10 -0500, blake murphy
> > > wrote:

> >>in any case, people could edit better (including taking care with
> >>attributions), but it's not a major source of irritation for me.
> >
> > It's a major problem for me. Obviously they have no idea who said
> > what. If that's the case, then just cut out everything except what
> > you're responding to.
>
> well, all i can say is that you're swimming against the tide, here.

I'm glad you understood what was being posted. I sure didn't. It
almost sounded like sf was saying that people should trim their posts so
that their replies make sense.

"Sense" sounds like a good thing to me.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

[Default User]

Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:42:29 -0800, sf wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:56:10 -0500, blake murphy
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > in any case, people could edit better (including taking care
> > > > with attributions), but it's not a major source of irritation
> > > > for me.
> > >
> > > It's a major problem for me. Obviously they have no idea who said
> > > what. If that's the case, then just cut out everything except
> > > what you're responding to.
> >
> > well, all i can say is that you're swimming against the tide, here.
>
> I'm glad you understood what was being posted. I sure didn't. It
> almost sounded like sf was saying that people should trim their posts
> so that their replies make sense.

No, she was saying that people who bottom-post frequently fail to trim,
making their posts hard to follow, so everyone should top-post instead.



Brian

--
Day 352 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project

[sf[_9_]]

On 20 Jan 2010 23:48:28 GMT, "Default User" >
wrote:

>No, she was saying that people who bottom-post frequently fail to trim,
>making their posts hard to follow, so everyone should top-post instead.
>

Yep. That's what I said. Top posting keeps proper attributions with
the text. No muss, no fuss, no bother.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

[blake murphy[_2_]]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:03:39 -0800, Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:42:29 -0800, sf wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:56:10 -0500, blake murphy
>>> > wrote:
>
>>>>in any case, people could edit better (including taking care with
>>>>attributions), but it's not a major source of irritation for me.
>>>
>>> It's a major problem for me. Obviously they have no idea who said
>>> what. If that's the case, then just cut out everything except what
>>> you're responding to.
>>
>> well, all i can say is that you're swimming against the tide, here.
>
> I'm glad you understood what was being posted. I sure didn't. It
> almost sounded like sf was saying that people should trim their posts so
> that their replies make sense.
>
> "Sense" sounds like a good thing to me.

i was referring to her advocacy of top-posting.

your pal,
blake

[sf[_9_]]

On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:52:34 -0500, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:03:39 -0800, Dan Abel wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> blake murphy > wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:42:29 -0800, sf wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:56:10 -0500, blake murphy
>>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>>in any case, people could edit better (including taking care with
>>>>>attributions), but it's not a major source of irritation for me.
>>>>
>>>> It's a major problem for me. Obviously they have no idea who said
>>>> what. If that's the case, then just cut out everything except what
>>>> you're responding to.
>>>
>>> well, all i can say is that you're swimming against the tide, here.
>>
>> I'm glad you understood what was being posted. I sure didn't. It
>> almost sounded like sf was saying that people should trim their posts so
>> that their replies make sense.
>>
>> "Sense" sounds like a good thing to me.
>
>i was referring to her advocacy of top-posting.
>
You starting to sound like a status quo conservative.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

[Phred]

In article >, blake murphy > wrote:
[snip]
>i just don't like top posting because my first reaction is 'what were we
>talking about again?'

Yes, that's a problem when you get old. ;-)

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

[brooklyn1]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 00:39:00 GMT, (Phred)
wrote:

>In article >, blake murphy > wrote:
>[snip]
>>i just don't like top posting because my first reaction is 'what were we
>>talking about again?'
>
>Yes, that's a problem when you get old. ;-)
>
Especially the LAZY scumbags. like YOU, who don't clean up the
attributions.

Will ya just lookit up there at that guinea FILTH... sumone oughta put
a 9mm in your ear and pull the trigger, you Phucken Phred loser.