J
John Bokma
Walter said:
Do you own spmvpsam.org? If not, why are you making sure it gets spam.
clueless n00b.
Do you own spmvpsam.org? If not, why are you making sure it gets spam.
clueless n00b.
S
sf
1. If you're having problems with Michael's posts, consider that your
own news reader is part of the problem. I don't have your issues, but
I use Agent.
2. If top posting is your only problem with Michael, you need to find
another news group to post to. Preferably one populated by bottom
feeders and readers.
3. Get a life.
`````````````````````
Practice safe eating. Always use condiments.
own news reader is part of the problem. I don't have your issues, but
I use Agent.
2. If top posting is your only problem with Michael, you need to find
another news group to post to. Preferably one populated by bottom
feeders and readers.
3. Get a life.
`````````````````````
Practice safe eating. Always use condiments.
K
K
Are you saying that you have to read the original post over and over again
to know what each reply is about?
K
to know what each reply is about?
K
John Bokma said:
J
John Bokma
K said:
If you use Google Groups you can find many examples which are written
bottom up, and hence you have to scroll down, and read the bottom part
first in order to be able to understand the answer.
So it's not "just me" who prefers to read top to bottom. Most books I
own are written that way. All languages I speak are written that way.
If you really are looking for understanding: reply to a post in such a
way that when you print it, and give it to someone else he/she can read
it without any problems, meaning: top down but also: *all* lines not
needed removed (e.g. signatures and lines that are no longer necessary
to understand it).
Or: a good post should be a summary of the question and answer.
This not only uses very little resources, but also makes it much easier
to find a message back in an archive.
Another advantage, if you write a nice clear post, you can refer people
back to it later, by message id, or just pointing them to Google groups.
So instead of wasting time (by writing clear) you end up saving your own
time, and the time of lots of other people too.
Usenet works also because quite a lot of volunteers work on it behind
the scenes. Why waste the resources of thousands of news masters? And
storage of many many archives?
Also: Why waste the bandwidth of thousands and thousands of users? Just
to "save" time?
S
Shenan Stanley
John Bokma wrote:
I hate to be the one to point out that this whole discussion likley wasted
the bandwidth (and quite possibly the time) of thousands and thousands of
users/"news masters" and argued (mainly) opinions on how to post answers
instead of actually posting answers to questions. =)
Personally - I use bottom posting - most of the time eliminating the
irrelevant sections of the post above, but attempting to maintain the
continuity - but I wouldn't hold someone to that standard anymore than
writing left-to-right, which not all cultures do. (Of course, with english
groups, that would be terribly confusing.. ?kniht uoy t'noD
K said:
I hate to be the one to point out that this whole discussion likley wasted
the bandwidth (and quite possibly the time) of thousands and thousands of
users/"news masters" and argued (mainly) opinions on how to post answers
instead of actually posting answers to questions. =)
Personally - I use bottom posting - most of the time eliminating the
irrelevant sections of the post above, but attempting to maintain the
continuity - but I wouldn't hold someone to that standard anymore than
writing left-to-right, which not all cultures do. (Of course, with english
groups, that would be terribly confusing.. ?kniht uoy t'noD
J
John Bokma
Shenan said:
If some people get the message, it will save in a very very short time more
then it ever wasted both on time and bandwidth.
Hence inline posting.
What would happen if several people here start to reply using Devanagari,
you guess? Or Urdu?
So you agree with me. This group uses a language that is in most cases
written left to right, top to bottom. Which is one reason why *inline*
posting *is* in the netiquette written for lr, tb languages.
S
Segovia
John said:
You're banging your head against the wall trying to get people to bottom
post here John. They just don't get it... for some reason.
S
Segovia
Joan said:
I'm sure his posts are very helpful and informative. I also understand why
he's top posting - he finally gave in to the inconsiderate retards who
can't be bothered to form a proper post, or follow standard Usenet
convention.
In most non-MS groups, you'd be in everyone's kill filter for even arguing
the point... and you'd be having a nice discussion with yourself about the
merits of top-posting.
S
Shenan Stanley
Shenan said:
John said:
However, if you are a frequent reader/poster of newsgroups (especially
these) then you know that the majority of people will never see the entire
thread - especially not the new people who will come on here and discover
things they did not know and in order to return the favor - begin to respond
to others postings.
Shenan said:
John said:
Sometimes - in order to preserve the idea the post is trying to convey - it
is better to leave the entire (sans miscellaneous babblings) original
message - as someone else might notice a particular phrase/point that I
missed/overlooked/misunderstood. Not to mention that since this newsgroup
(as are many) is reproduced on thousands of other servers that some people
post/read and have different "time-to-removal" policies - a complete
inclusion of the original post can - in some cases - carry the thread over
where it might have been missed before.
Shenan said:
John said:
Since it happens often here that someone posts in their native tongue (which
is not English) - I can answer that. If I recognize the language and can
attempt to translate it - sometimes I do or at least suggest they post in
the Microsoft Newsgroup for their language to receive proper assistance.
Shenan said:
John said:
I agree for the most part - however, I will not condemn anyone for posting
how they like as long as they are being helpful in the process. For a
poster in these newsgroups who need the help, I am sure they could care less
if the answer is on top of their post, inline with their post, at the bottom
of their post or has completely removed any remnants of their original
message - as long as they receive the advice they need in order to solve
their problem that was pressing enough to ask about in the first place.
The variations in netiquette is as varied as eating habits, writing styles,
death rituals, religion and family values. It is also fluid
(ever-changing) - for example I found this older MVP document setup as a
"Tips for Posting" FAQ:
http://www.mvps.org/dmcritchie/excel/posting.htm
Notice number 20, added April, 1998:
"20) When posting a reply to a post, put your response at the top of the
message, above the cited text of previous messages. (See #8 above). This
makes it much easier to others to read the responses to a message that has
been posted."
I also found this link in reference to another specific Microsoft newsgroup:
http://www.yoda.arachsys.com/csharp/faq/posting.html
Where this author states their preference as bottom/inline - but "suggests
that you quote appropriately whichever way you're posting.."
This author made an entire page devoted to reasoning why bottom/quoted
posting is better than top-posting:
http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
And this person had ENTIRELY too much time on their hands and have posted
for/against arguments for both types of postings!
http://mailformat.dan.info/quoting/top-posting.html
http://mailformat.dan.info/quoting/bottom-posting.html
Right or wrong doesn't matter - I found these using an Internet search
engine and so would many others - meaning the advice they take may not be
the advice you would give/take.
Microsoft Help and Support defines the word "netiquette" accordingly
(
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=/support/glossary/n.asp
)
-- n. Short for network etiquette. Principles of courtesy observed in
sending electronic messages, such as e-mail and Usenet postings. The
consequences of violating netiquette include being flamed and having one's
name placed in the bozo filter of one's intended audience. Disapproved
behavior includes gratuitous personal insults; posting of large amounts of
irrelevant material; giving away the plot of a movie, television show, or
novel without warning; posting offensive material without encrypting it; and
excessive cross-posting of a message to multiple groups without regard to
whether the group members are likely to find it interesting. See also bozo
filter, flame2.
Which mentions nothing about Top vs. Bottom vs. Inline posting.
Also the "Rules of Conduct" for the Microsoft Communities can be found here:
http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.mspx
And they mention nothing about Top vs. Bottom vs. Inline posting.
*If* the person responding to the OP does so professionally and helps that
OP solve their issue and the OP does not complain - then they could have
typed at the top, at the bottom, inline, in white-text on a white
background, backwards and upside down and I personally would not be
bothered - as it is not my place to complain if I did not have the original
question.
Sure, I have my opinion - I like and use inline and bottom posting only. I
like raw jalapeño peppers, I read science fiction novels, use three
different newsreaders (depending on where I am), wouldn't get a tattoo
anywhere on my body and prefer DVD+R/RWs over DVD-R/RWs.. but that doesn't
mean you should agree on all of those things.
J
John Bokma
Shenan said:
Exactly, and that is *exactly* why a reply should be crafted in such a
way that *only* the relevant lines are kept. Or as I often explain: one
should be able to print the message, read it, and understand it. With
top posting, one *has to* read bottom up, and skip over a lot of not
relevant lines (like complete quoted signatures etc.).
Yup, agreed, but this is quite rare. Signatures *should* be deleted
(with one exception).
Again, those cases are *extremely* rare. Also since the level of
knowledge of the person who answers is often sufficient to summarize the
OP's question.
[ .. ]
Yup, I do the same for top posting :-D. Especially if so called
"professionals" seem to think it's the best way (which it is *not*).
They are *less* helpful to all other people who read the posting in
situations you described at the top of this message.
Exactly, they even prefer on top, since they only think about
themselves.
Not regarding how to reply, IIRC it's even an RFC.
This clearly shows how much MVPs know about Usenet and the issues at
hand.
R
Robert Moir
John Bokma wrote:
[lots of snips]
Some of us know enough not to assume the opinion of an entire group from
that of one person, thank you very much. Can I please be allowed to either
state my own opinion or not have you assume it based on someone who is a
complete stranger to me, in the future?
[lots of snips]
Some of us know enough not to assume the opinion of an entire group from
that of one person, thank you very much. Can I please be allowed to either
state my own opinion or not have you assume it based on someone who is a
complete stranger to me, in the future?
J
John Bokma
Robert said:
you haven't asked the entire group, so your reasoning is flawed.
If you read a bit better, and didn't let your biased narrow mindness get in
its way (again very likely) you would have found more people.
Oh, look up netiquette, RFC 1855
"If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
*summarize the original* at the *top* of the message, or *include* *just
enough text* of the *original* to give a context. This will make sure
readers understand when they start to read your response."
R
Robert Moir
John said:
"More people" what?
My point was that you seem to be saying that all MVPs are clueless about
usenet because one or two prefer top posting.
I'm a MVP. I don't prefer top-posting. Speaking of "biased narrow mindness",
hows that assumption of yours doing now?
Absolutely, I agree.
J
John Bokma
Robert said:
Thanks, and apologies for what I earlier wrote about you.
My (still valid point) is that top posting adds a *huge* overhead, which
results in a huge number of resources being wasted. Quite a lot of
people keep Usenet running voluntarily, at minimal costs. Some people
even lose money because they help Usenet running.
For people who can't do the math, say the original message is 1K, and
each reply is 1K. With top posting, message n is n K, of which very
likely (n - 2)K is wasting bandwidth.
Why throw away all that money? Just because a few want to "save" time?
While wasting more time *and* money of many other people?
It's the egoistic, self centered approach one sees in huge parts of the
1st World, growing and growing.