Top posting

On 8 Jun 2006 22:38:40 -0700, "Didi" Gave us:

You're an idiot. It's about common sense.

On 8 Jun 2006 22:38:40 -0700, "Didi" Gave us:

You're also an idiot for quoting the proper text to reply to of that person's post, replying in a proper format, THEN you went and fully quoted his post AGAIN under your reply. You surpass the normal top posting retard with your newly "formatted" stupidity.

I would suggest that you read the TOFU part of the top posting explanation. Even though you technically didn't do that, what you did do is just as bad.

On 8 Jun 2006 22:38:40 -0700, "Didi" Gave us:

It's called convention, dumbass.

You wouldn't even have a job in the industry were it not for such an animal. So yes... conform or be ignored.

Do you run red lights in your car?

Trust me, you wouldn't like what the result of anarchy would do to you. Even though so so many of you dolts actually think it would be a good thing.

On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 03:37:20 -0400, "Paul E. Schoen" Gave us:

No, dumbfuck... you didn't top post your post. YOU pulled what is known as TOFU, which is even MORE retarded!

I use OEQuoteFix which puts my answer and sig in the right place and colours nicely the different answers in the thread.

Good analysis. I am also appalled at the email I get sent by people on RIM CrackBerries. Quoting is next to none existent, end's of lines are messed up. Its a real mess. At least from the people I communicate with.

I remember a coop term I had while in university in the mid-90's. In order to use their internet connection you had to read through a netiquette course and then pass a test on it. This company had 3000+ employees so they saw the need to have everyone using the same conventions.

Now you have kids thinking that IM is netiquette. Kids these days!.

James.

--- You're not open to new ideas, you're forcing yourself into believing that there _is_ a clear benefit by leaving tradition and old tools behind.

Top posting in the instance you're describing is _not_ appropriate. _You_ may think so because you've already read the material following your post, but for someone who hasn't you force them to read your "conclusion" and then seek after what you're referring.

The normal chronological flow of printed information in our culture is from the upper left hand corner of the page to the bottom right hand corner, and to think that by trying to subvert that that you're doing something acceptable, or appropriate, is just plain stupid.

All you're doing is making it more difficult for others to follow the discussion.

Try reading a book sometime from the ends of the chapters forward and you might gain an understanding of what you do when you top post.

---

--- You can state whatever you want to, but that doesn't make it correct.

Moreover, finding other idiots with whom you agree doesn't give your argument support, it just means the other idiots are as wrong as you are.

-- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer

Do not tell an idiot that they are an idiot. Do not even to presume that you might explain to an idiot how they might be an idiot.

Such action allows the idiot to cross off the item from their idiots checklist, select the 'appropriate' response from the cross reference and move on to the next point on the 'Idiots Agenda'.

If you are not an idiot then you will lose.

If you are an idiot as well then you will have access to the 'Idiots Agenda'.

Noting the response of your fellow idiot you will move immediatly to subsection 45c) of page 1286) in preparation for some extreme stupidity.

Obviously the manual is stapled together in a backwards fashion.

If in doubt e-mail snipped-for-privacy@guymacon.com.

That's on the front.... errrr back.... errr bugger!

DNA

Having recently been obliged to use Outlook in the corporate world, I'm horrified to find that it doesn't follow the convention of the antique software that I'm used to - namely that, if text is highlighted before hitting the Reply button, it and only it is included as quoted text. Still Microsloth must know best - look at how successful they have become!

A quick look through the posts in this thread suggests that Outlook users tend to prefer top posting while the rest strongly prefer bottom posting.

On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 21:04:05 -0400, mc top-posted:

What the f*ck are you talking about?

Worthless top-poster.

Feh.

Hey, respond to your emails however you want to. But if you flout USENET conventions, (USENET is _*NOT*_ email), you stand the chance of being resoundingly ignored.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Or, you could go outside and play "hide and go f*ck yourself".

Good Luck! Rich

You appear to think that bottom-posting is an artifact of 'single-line newsreaders' and thus obsolete. Correct?

Tim

If top posting were not ALREADY widely "traditional," this debate would not be happening.

I've never heard of that. If there were a convienient way (*cough* KB) to select inanimate text when viewing a post, I can see that being useful for one paragraph replies.

But a minor point. So, instead of selecting it, you have an extra step to delete the lines above and below. It takes one to two seconds with keyboard arrows, pagedown, the shift key, and a fast repeat rate.

Tim

Odd, I counted 4 top posts out of 36 (11%) (soon to be a few more), and of those four, three used OE (~75%) and one used ProNews (Jim Bachus, who has also bottom posted). Of the OE users, "mc", who posted two of the three remaining posts, has also posted twice in this thread in snipped-bottom-posting format, ruling him out as a stereotypical habitual top-poster. The remaining top post, by Paul E. Schoen, is his only post in this thread, but a look at other posts of his suggests he is, in fact, primarily a bottom-poster (without snipping or much interleaving, unfortunately).

Thus, not all OE users are top posters; top posting is not exclusive to OE; and top posters are not necessarily exclusively top-posting.

Tim "statistics burn the brain"

Says more of the people buying into it than anything else :)