OT: Why not to top-post

Jim Thompson wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

The filtering is something I'm still working out it works based on a points system or you can "plonk" posters you can also use custom filters. With Agent I just Kill Filtered anything from Google and a few of the regular nuts.

I've found now that I dont have any filters, that the junk from Google is no where near as bad as it used to be, mind you all it takes is one spammer to do a spambomb for a couple of days straight.When that happens I guess I'll have to actually read the help file on how to set the filters up ;-)

Short answers.

Tim

-- Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website:

Rich Grise wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@example.net:

Me First, Fuck You

--- Destroying the context by excluding older text in a reply, as you've done above, doesn't seem to make much sense, since no one knows what you're talking about.

Neither would the typical top-post:

Short answers.

Tim

-- Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website:

since it makes everyone go bouncing around trying to find out what's going on.

However, this makes sense, logically _and_ chronologically:

Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website:

Short answers.

Tim

---

So "short answers" doesn't lead to better and clearer communications when they're top posted; bottom posting and in-line posting, where appropriate, do.

Even when the answer is very short.

--- JF

Would gouted text be a result of overquoting bloat?

Pan mutes quoted text.I've been using it for many years.

Since I switched from NewsFlex (sorry, Jan, but I like Pan better).

If you have been following the thread in question, then a top post would the latest in the discussion.

If you are new to the thread, should I be required to help you get up to speed.

If I would clip the entire text and make my statement only for those that have been following the thread in question, would you complain that you were left out of the discussion.

To what?

Thanks, Rich

No, but it'd be nice if you'd class up enough to follow standard USENET conventions.

Thanks, Rich

--- So shut the f*ck up and ignore it, instead of adding to the age of it.

(That's an example of in-line posting.)

---

--- If you've been following the thread and everyone has been posting chronologically, (the way we write, oldest at the top and newest at the bottom) then scrolling to the last post (a great deal of effort, of course for those want to have their post exalted to the top spot, no matter what inconvenience it may cause for their readers) will locate the latest post.

---

--- Clumsy.

You're obviously ignorant regarding the use of the ampersand, and yet you want to be considered a judge of how the English language should be used in written conference?

Regarding your question: If I'm new to the thread and everyone has bottom posted, then no help will be required since I'll be able to easily read the list of posts, much like paragraphs, in the way everyone who is used to reading English is used to, from left to right and from top to bottom.

---

--- Yes, of course, but why would you want to do that?

--- JF

See, my point exactly ;^)

Tim

-- Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website:

I guess not.

What was the question again?

"Is it possible to cure idiots of top-posting?"

Apparently, the consesus is "No."

Thanks, Rich

Is it possible to cure bigots?

Oh...

Tim

-- Deep Friar: a very philos>>

order? reverse in threads reading prefer everybody Doesn't

irony. get don't top-posters good - no It's