Top posting / trimming

[David Williams]

Would somebody kindly explain (simply please) what 'top posting' is and
similarly 'trimming'?
thanks
dw

 

[David Williams]

This isn't top-posting ... took me a while to figure it out after I was
being accused of top-posting somewhere. At least, I think this is what they
meant.

(and people loose sleep about this???????)

 

[Rod Speed]

This is top posting.

Would somebody kindly explain (simply please) what 'top posting' is and
similarly 'trimming'?
thanks
dw

And this is bottom posting.

Trimming is editing out superfluous quoting.

 

[Eric Gisin]

Look to any Rod vs the-world thread to see an example of non-trimming.

It is including quoted text that you are not responding to, especially
multiple levels.

| Would somebody kindly explain (simply please) what 'top posting' is and
| similarly 'trimming'?
| thanks
| dw
|
|

 

[Rod Speed]

Half got it. You stuffed it up by putting a
quote symbol on the front of that first line tho.

(and people loose sleep about this???????)

Yep. Have a look at chrisv's posts using www.groups.google.com
He never posts about anything else much at all.

Rather pathetic, really.

 

[David Williams]

Yep. Have a look at chrisv's posts using www.groups.google.com
He never posts about anything else much at all.

Rather pathetic, really.

I looked: it's a bizarre parallel universe looseley based upon quantum
mechanics. I didn't realise such places existed.

 

[Joep]

This is top-posting ...

 

[Joep]

Would somebody kindly explain (simply please) what 'top posting' is and
similarly 'trimming'?
thanks
dw

This isn't top-posting ... took me a while to figure it out after I was
being accused of top-posting somewhere. At least, I think this is what they
meant.

 

[Tom]

(and people loose sleep about this???????)

OMG, top post in some newsgroups and you'd think WW3 was started....
It's a fn joke as far as I'm concerned.
I don't want to have to scroll to the flipping bottom to post or read
posts...

 

[Mike Tomlinson]

I don't want to have to scroll to the flipping bottom to post or read
posts...

That's where the snipping part comes in - only enough of the original
post should be quoted so as to maintain context. Getting people to stop
top posting isn't too bad; it's the quote snipping that eludes many.

 

[yeszur]

Would somebody kindly explain (simply please) what 'top posting' is and
similarly 'trimming'?
thanks
dw

From Google.com:

"Read the rest of this message... (33 more lines)...."

Bottom Posting is not practical unless trimmed.

 

[Rod Speed]

That's where the snipping part comes in - only enough of the original
post should be quoted so as to maintain context. Getting people to
stop top posting isn't too bad; it's the quote snipping that eludes many.

It doesnt 'elude' most, many just dont bother anymore with
bandwidth so abundant now. Its more convenient to be able to
chase up the older detail in the quotes than to have to go and
find the stuff that got dropped from the quoting in an older post.

The world's moved on, just like it always does with anything
to do with computing. With a few still furiously 'living' in the past,
just like some always do with anything to do with computing.

 

[chrisv]

It doesnt 'elude' most, many just dont bother anymore with
bandwidth so abundant now.

It's not all about bandwidth.

Its more convenient to be able to
chase up the older detail in the quotes than to have to go and
find the stuff that got dropped from the quoting in an older post.

I strongly disagree. Proper trimming on the part of the poster (one
person) can save effort on the part of the MANY who will read it,
resulting in a net gain for society (and just plain better USENET
discussions).

The world's moved on, just like it always does with anything
to do with computing. With a few still furiously 'living' in the past,
just like some always do with anything to do with computing.

Nonsense. Technology has little to do with it - it's still just a
bunch of text. This is about *communication* and the extra effort to
make your posts accessible and understandable.

 

[Rod Speed]

It's not all about bandwidth.

Corse it is.

I strongly disagree.

Your problem. You're always welcome to be wrong.

Proper trimming on the part of the poster (one person)
can save effort on the part of the MANY who will read it,

Bullshit when most will read it as part of a thread
and wont need to read the quoted text at all because
they will have just read the post thats quoted a
moment ago so the context is already in their heads.

resulting in a net gain for society

You get just as much of that by not trimming so anyone
can read the new stuff and refer to the quoted text if
they are not aware of the context or have forgotten
it etc without having to find the earlier post to get that.

(and just plain better USENET discussions).

Just another of your pathetic little obsessive fantasys.

Nonsense. Technology has little to do with it

Crap. The bandwidth is now ample so there is no downside with
quoting the entire context so it can be read if the reader chooses to.

- it's still just a bunch of text.

Must be one of those rocket scientist obsessives.

This is about *communication*

And that gets ****ed when fools like you strip out most of the context.

and the extra effort to make your posts accessible and understandable.

Pity your shit can never be that, no matter how its trimmed.

 

[Mike Tomlinson]

Nonsense. Technology has little to do with it - it's still just a
bunch of text. This is about *communication* and the extra effort to
make your posts accessible and understandable.

I really wouldn't waste your time trying to argue with Ron^Hd the Moron.
Just stick the ****wit in your killfile.

 

[chrisv]

Corse it is.

Lie. It obviously is NOT "all" about bandwidth. Only an idiot or
liar would claim that readability and understandability are not
enhanced by properly formatting a post.

Your problem. You're always welcome to be wrong.


Bullshit when most will read it as part of a thread
and wont need to read the quoted text at all because
they will have just read the post thats quoted a
moment ago so the context is already in their heads.

Funny, here you say that context isn't needed because it's in the
previous post, and below you complain about "fools" who "strip out
most of the context". Do make up your mind, Ron^Hd.

You get just as much of that by not trimming so anyone
can read the new stuff and refer to the quoted text if
they are not aware of the context or have forgotten
it etc without having to find the earlier post to get that.

In theory that works, but in practice the resulting massive posts get
messy and difficult to read. They also get the lazy top-posters in a
frenzy - "I don't want to scroll down." So they top post, and we're
worse off than ever.

For sure, just keeping everything, as we're doing now, is vastly
superior to top posting...

Just another of your pathetic little obsessive fantasys.



Crap. The bandwidth is now ample so there is no downside with
quoting the entire context so it can be read if the reader chooses to.

My case does not rest on bandwidth, Ron^Hd. I agree that bandwidth is
sufficient.

Must be one of those rocket scientist obsessives.

You ignored my point that technology has NOT changed the fundamental
nature of USENET communications, Ron^Hd.

And that gets ****ed when fools like you strip out most of the context.

"Fools like me"? Nope, I always keep appropriate context. There's no
question that USENET would work better if everyone put in the effort
that I do to communicate effectively. Top posting, in particular, is
nothing but a selfish practice that saves the poster time, at the
expense of the quality of the discussion.

Pity your shit can never be that, no matter how its trimmed.

Another lie. Your willingness to lie, just to be argumentative, means
that none of your comments has any weight or credibility, Ron^Hd.

I made a valid point about "the extra effort to make your posts
accessible and understandable". You had no response to this point, so
you lash out with a lie/insult. Typical for you, Ron^Hd.

 

[chrisv]

I really wouldn't waste your time trying to argue with Ron^Hd the Moron.

Well, at least he's not a top poster... 8) And he's fun to argue
with.

Just stick the ****wit in your killfile.

No, that's reserved for the truly worthless trolls.

 

[Rod Speed]

That can still result in the new material not being immediately
visible, particularly if the new material is all posted at the bottom.

Yes, some fools let themselves get monstered.

Lie.

Pathetic excuse for bullshit.

It obviously is NOT "all" about bandwidth.

You were the one stupid enough to rabbit on about 'all', child.

Only an idiot or liar would claim that
readability and understandability are not
enhanced by properly formatting a post.

Only a pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist wouldnt be
able to grasp that many dont bother about readability or
understandability and dont even bother to proof read their posts.

Hardly anyone even bothers to clean up
the mess most quoters produce either.

You get to like that or lump it, child.

Funny, here you say that context isn't
needed because it's in the previous post,

ONLY when the thread is read like that, cretin.

and below you complain about "fools"
who "strip out most of the context".

Because that matters WHEN THE ENTIRE THREAD
ISNT READ IN ONE SITTING, OR SOME POSTS ARE
MISSING ON THE NEWS SERVER BEING USED, cretin.

Do make up your mind, Ron^Hd.

Even a terminally obsessive cretin such as
yourself should be about to grasp that not
everyone reads a thread the same way, cretin.

So you dont get to demand that every post must for formatted
in the way you prefer. You get to like it or lump it instead.

In theory that works,

In practice it works.

but in practice the resulting massive posts get messy and difficult to read.

You're always welcome to ignore the quoted text and
get the context from the earlier posts if you prefer.

If the quoted text isnt there, you dont get that
choice when reading a particular post, cretin.

They also get the lazy top-posters in
a frenzy - "I don't want to scroll down."

Their choice. You get to like that or lump that too.

So they top post,

Their choice. You get to like that or lump that too.

and we're worse off than ever.

You get to like that or lump that too.

For sure, just keeping everything, as we're
doing now, is vastly superior to top posting...

You're always welcome to do anything you like, and they
are always welcome to make an obscene gesture in your
general direction and do anything they like themselves too.

My case does not rest on bandwidth, Ron^Hd.

You dont have a 'case', wanker. Just another mindless obsession.

I agree that bandwidth is sufficient.

And when the entire post being replied to is quoted, anyone
who chooses to read whats quoted for the context can do
that and anyone who doesnt need to is welcome to ignore that.

You dont approve ? You're completely irrelevant.

You ignored my point that technology has NOT changed the
fundamental nature of USENET communications, Ron^Hd.

You dont have a 'point', wanker. There was a valid reason for
trimming when bandwidth was at a premium. That aint been
so for a long time now so there isnt any point in bothering.

"Fools like me"?
Yep.

Nope, I always keep appropriate context.
Wrong.

There's no question that USENET would work better if
everyone put in the effort that I do to communicate effectively.

Wrong. Most obviously when posts are missing on the news
server being used and the original unedited post aint visible.

And whatever you 'think' few bother with the extra effort
to even proofread their new material, let alone obscessively
trim back the quoting, or fix the mess most quoters produce.

You get to like that or lump that too.

Top posting, in particular, is nothing but a
selfish practice that saves the poster time, at
the expense of the quality of the discussion.

You can keep respewing that drivel to till the
cows come home if you like, changes nothing.

IF YOU ARE GOING TO QUOTE EVERYTHING FOR WHATEVER
REASON AND ARE ONLY GOING TO MAKE A SINGLE RESPONSE,
FOR WHATEVER REASON, TOP POSTING IS MORE READABLE
FOR MOST BECAUSE SOME SYSTEMS LIKE GROUPS.GOOGLE
MAKE IT HARDER TO SEE BOTTOM POSTED MATERIAL,
PARTICULARLY WHEN AN ENTIRE THREAD IS BEING READ.

Reams of your puerile shit flushed where it belongs.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Lie. It obviously is NOT "all" about bandwidth. Only an idiot or
liar would claim that readability and understandability are not

enhanced by properly formatting a post.

The problem is in 'properly'.
It takes a lot of effort to do it 'properly'. Effort in snip-
ping just the right amount and extra effort in commenting
so much more clearly than would otherwise be necessary.

And I with you.

Funny, here you say that context isn't needed because it's
in the previous post,

Nope. Reread that again. This time 'properly'.

and below you complain about "fools" who "strip out
most of the context". Do make up your mind, Ron^Hd.


In theory that works, but in practice the resulting massive posts get
messy and difficult to read.

True. Especially with those who are too stupid to setup their newsreader
properly and quote single lines into 1 full line and several single word lines.
Typical how you are so anal about snipping but not about quoting properly.

They also get the lazy top-posters in a frenzy - "I don't want to scroll down."

That's a bonus, isn't it?
That's to get them actually read the stuff to comment on or to SHUTUP !

So they top post,

On what, if they haven't read the previous comments?

and we're worse off than ever.

For sure, just keeping everything, as we're doing now, is vastly
superior to top posting...

And using quote coloring makes it quite easy to read and follow actually.

It had.

My case does not rest on bandwidth, Ron^Hd. I agree that bandwidth is
sufficient.


You ignored my point that technology has NOT changed the fundamental
nature of USENET communications, Ron^Hd.


"Fools like me"? Nope, I always keep appropriate context.

Huh? Who made you the judge of that?

There's no question that USENET would work better if every
one put in the effort that I do to communicate effectively.
ROTFLOL.

Top posting, in particular, is nothing but a selfish practice that
saves the poster time, at the expense of the quality of the discussion.

Only if others let it.

 

[chrisv]

True. Especially with those who are too stupid to setup their newsreader
properly and quote single lines into 1 full line and several single word lines.
Typical how you are so anal about snipping but not about quoting properly.

You're talking about how Outhouse Express mangles quotes, I assume.
Actually I am frustrated by that as well, and have, on several
occasions, suggested to OE users that they fix their software (or not
use OE at all). I also hate the way OE breaks long URL's, and will
chide OE users about that, as well.

These are different issues, though - they are not the result of
willful selfishness and laziness on the poster's part - just a bit of
ignorance regarding their choice of tools.

So, I am indeed consistent on these matters, although I find one more
irksome than the other.

Huh? Who made you the judge of that?

Obviously, opinions may vary on the proper amount of "context
retention". But that fact that I make a real effort makes a large
postitive difference, IMO.

ROTFLOL.

Fact, whether you think it's funny or not, F'nut. The key is making
an *effort* to communicate clearly. You do it, with the added burden
of using what is not your native language. Rod does it, too. Top
posters don't do it.

Only if others let it.

Wrong, unless you just ignore or kill-file the top poster. Otherwise
things get VERY messy, and the top poster is blathering-away at the
top so it's difficult to track all the points being discussed. It's
virtually impossible (difficult at best) to have a quality,
point-by-point discussion if one of the participants is top posting.