[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.

[Michel Boucher[_3_]]

sf > wrote in news:gi8fl55dn71f7ap4986ggfv98ihvhjidu3@
4ax.com:

> Top posting keeps proper attributions with
> the text. No muss, no fuss, no bother.

However, judicious editing and interlarding (ob food) comments shows more
respect for your reader. Yes, it takes time but if you can't devote time
to the pursuit of proper electronic epistolary style, why even bother?

Top posting is Microsoft's lazy-ass reply process which seems to work in an
office setting where you may need all previous comments as a short term
archive, but not on Usenet where this is a conversation.

If you want to be a Microsoft toadie, why don't you just say so :-)

Of course, I'm old school...trim, edit, comment, and so on.

--

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

spotted on a poster

[sf[_9_]]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:15:29 -0600, Michel Boucher
> wrote:

>
>If you want to be a Microsoft toadie, why don't you just say so :-)
>
I am. I love Windows. I knelt down and kissed Bills feet when I
didn't have to use DOS and Word Perfect.

>Of course, I'm old school...trim, edit, comment, and so on.

Rock on!

--
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.

[blake murphy[_2_]]

On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 15:01:34 -0800, sf wrote:

> 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.

substitute 'set in my ways' for 'conservative' and that's pretty much
right.

your pal,
blake

[Lou decruss]

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:04:26 -0500, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 15:01:34 -0800, sf wrote:

>>>> "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.
>
>substitute 'set in my ways' for 'conservative' and that's pretty much
>right.

LOL. She would be the only one dumb enough to use conservative in
any sentence referring to you.

Lou