Anyone recognise this hex format? - Page 2

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Re: OT: Bottom Post for 20th century

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It's pretty simple, you quote text that you are responding to, you delete
stuff that you're not responding to, just like I've done here.

--
Burn the land and boil the sea,
 You can't take the sky from me.

Re: OT: Bottom Post for 20th century
On Wed, 26 May 2004 13:55:12 +0200, "Rob Turk"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No, you don't. You quoted the entire article, even including the sig
block, when you were responding to at most two sentences.

Unfortunately, it's your kind of "rule" which provides justification
for the top-posters. No rules are needed, just common sense.

--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT: Bottom Post for 20th century


Quoted text here. Click to load it

You describe a real problem. but top-posting isn't the solution.
There are two good solutions:

[1] Trim all previous material to one or maybe two paragraphs.

[2] Trim it all and write a summary into the first line of the reply.


--
Guy Macon, Electronics Engineer & Project Manager for hire.
Remember Doc Brown from the _Back to the Future_ movies? Do you
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT: Bottom Post for 20th century

Hans-Bernhard Broeker says...
Quoted text here. Click to load it

 "Top posting classically or stereotypically involves no
 trimming and of course no contextualizing.of prior posts;  
 contrasted with contextualized posts, which sequence
 questions and responses in order and context, along
 with trimming of unnecessary lines.
 
 In this contrast, the top post is disorderly, messy,
 and most notably egocentrical, because it leaves all
 of the cleaning up and reorganization to the correspondent
 context posters and because it inappropriately emphasizes
 the importance of whatever the top poster has to say or
 ask while mostly disregarding everything anyone else has
 been said before.  It also expects the next reader to try
 to guess at what part of the previous posts the top poster
 is referring.and makes it nearly impossible to
 contextualize hir own responses."     -Mike Easter
 


Re: OT: Bottom Post for 20th century
Quoted text here. Click to load it

On the contrary, you should snip enthusiastically while bottom (or
intermix) posting.  The idea is to pack a single throught into a
single article, not a complete thread.

--
Chuck F ( snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com) ( snipped-for-privacy@worldnet.att.net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT: Bottom Post for 20th century
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Do you know ANYONE who advocates this?

/bin/mail wipe_me_ snipped-for-privacy@chello.nl < /dev/clue

--
Burn the land and boil the sea,
 You can't take the sky from me.

Re: OT: Bottom Post for 20th century
On Wed, 26 May 2004 17:56:26 +1000, Al Borowski

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I would have more sympathy for your point if you had bothered to cut
the approximately 100 lines of stuff you _weren't_ responding to.

Have you ever used a yahoo group?  Top-posting is rampant.  Snipping
of text is rare.  I have seen single messages with more than 300k of
text, of which only the first two lines were new.  I gave up having
messages delivered by email.  I'd give it up completely if it wasn't
the primary means of obtaining support for one of my important tools.

Regards,

                               -=Dave
--
Change is inevitable, progress is not.

Re: OT: Bottom Post for 20th century

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yeah, I realized that after I posted. But at least with a top post, it
doesn't really matter (as long as the message doesn't get too big). With
a bottom post you'd have to scroll down through all the old junk just to
read the few new lines.


Al


Re: OT: Bottom Post for 20th century
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Duh, tell that to someone who is on a modem connection, or worse, through a
cell phone or satellite system...

Meindert



Re: OT: Bottom Post for 20th century
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yes, because we all know how long an extra kb takes to download. How
many people read newsgroups on a mobile phone?

Al

Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: OT: Bottom Post for 20th century
On Thu, 27 May 2004 02:13:49 +1000, Al Borowski

Quoted text here. Click to load it

A lot. I personally know at least a dozen.

Some read newsgroups via satellite phone, as well. Remember this is an
international newsgroup.

--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT: Bottom Post for 20th century
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well, I am very glad that I am on cable now.  This whole thread is a
waste of bandwidth because the topic being discussed is more of a
religion than a matter of fact.  But I guess the old arguments have to
be dragged out of storage every once in a while to let other people know
that they still care...

All of you, face it, newsgroups are not a uniform medium with standards
or regulations.  Do it the way you like and dummy up about what others
do.  This is worse than the actual top/bottom posting mix.  

--

Rick "rickman" Collins

snipped-for-privacy@XYarius.com
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT: Bottom Post for 20th century
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well, I know quite few people that sail around the world right now, and post
in newsgroups using a mobile phone when near a shore or an Inmarsat
connection when at the middle of an ocean.

Meindert



Re: OT: Bottom Post for 20th century
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I find the average newsitem is approximately 3 KB.  I regularly
download 200 to 300 of these at a time over a modem.  That is in
the order of 1 MB transmission, and at least 3 or so connect
minutes (actually more, because of various overheads).  Top
posters regularly expand the articles to 50 or 100 kB, a factor of
15 to 30 times.  Too many of these lazy wastrels would expand the
connect time from a minor nuisance to an expensive pain.

It is closely akin to the silly attitude towards oil in the US
(and others).  There is much more to be gained by conservation
than by expanding the supply.

--
Chuck F ( snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com) ( snipped-for-privacy@worldnet.att.net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT: Bottom Post for 20th century


Quoted text here. Click to load it

I read newsgroups on my mobile phone, on my PDA, my Slackware box,
my Windows2000 box, my QNX box, and on my Commodore 128 connected
to a UNIX shell account on my ISPs server.

One of my coworkers is blind and reads newsgroups with his ears
through a text-to-speech converter running under FreeDOS.  Most
blind people have a very low opinion of what Microsoft has done
to email.


Re: OT: Bottom Post for 20th century
On Wed, 26 May 2004 11:25:26 -0700, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Out of curiosity, what version do you use?  Mine is 6.1.

   Vadim

Re: OT: Bottom Post for 20th century
On Wed, 26 May 2004 17:56:26 +1000, Al Borowski

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Agree with what? Something on the next screen of the message, I
presume, but I'm not going to bother searching for it.

"long longish posts" that have only one point probably do not need to
be quoted in full.

--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT: Bottom Post for 20th century
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well, if you can't be bothered to read the previous post in the thread,
thats your problem, not mine.



Al

Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: OT: Bottom Post for 20th century

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Consider that he may not have access to the previous post.  It may not have
arrived yet at his newsserver, it may never...

--
Richard

Re: OT: Bottom Post for 20th century
On Thu, 27 May 2004 02:18:08 +1000, Al Borowski

Quoted text here. Click to load it
I read lots of posts in lots of threads on several newsgroups. So I'm
supposed to remember *your* timeless prose, in particular? Or go
searching for it just to understand some priceless bit of your wisdom?
Hah!

Anyway, you have it backward - if you want your posts to be read, it's
your problem, not mine. If you don't want your posts to be read, don't
make them.

--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.

Site Timeline