Epson V10 and V100

Gary wrote:
> The rule against top posting was developed back in the time when there

Don't lecture on netiquette using a losing argument in a top post.

SF-East Bay'r wrote:
> I agree. I never could understand why people seem to prefer bottom posting.

It's for readability for people coming in later in the thread. It's
well recognized netiquette.

I agree, I am an unashamed top poster.

>I agree. I never could understand why people seem to prefer bottom posting.
> Tom

I wasn't lecturing--just stating why I like reading top posters instead
slogging through the same message a dozen times to get to each new reply and
why I think bottom posting "might" have been a reasonable standard way back
when. But, I think that standards can and should evolve.
--
Gary
Visit Lucy & Gary and do the jigsaw puzzle at
www.under-1-roof.com/PuzzlePage.html



"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:b--dnQBtPJJfW0fVnZ2dnUVZ_ovinZ2d@giganews.com...
> Gary wrote:
>> The rule against top posting was developed back in the time when there
>
> Don't lecture on netiquette using a losing argument in a top post.

Gary wrote:
> I wasn't lecturing--just stating why I like reading top posters instead
> slogging through the same message a dozen times to get to each new reply
> and why I think bottom posting "might" have been a reasonable standard
> way back when. But, I think that standards can and should evolve.

*plonk*

In article <1XvCk.1323$Ws1.1111@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com>,
"SF-East Bay'r" <not_real@notreal.net> wrote:

> I agree. I never could understand why people seem to prefer bottom posting.
> Tom
> "Gary" <gary@under-1-roof.com> wrote in message
> news:35481$48d9936d$48097434$11732@CTITECH.COM...
> > The rule against top posting was developed back in the time when there
> > might be days between the time an original post hit Usenet/Bitnet and
> > someone replied to it. The reader might like to see the o/p before they
> > read the reply. In this day and age when replies usually come quickly
> > after the o/p it makes no sense for readers to have to scroll through the
> > o/p multiple times to get down to the replies. In a top post the reader
> > can always scroll down to look at the o/p if he/she needs to refresh their
> > memory, otherwise it's "noted and move on." IMHO, the "rule" against top
> > posting is another case of "because that's the way we always did it!"
> >
> > Gary
> > Visit Lucy & Gary and do the jigsaw puzzle at
> > www.under-1-roof.com/PuzzlePage.html
> >
> >
> > "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> > news:99-dnXhXGvadHUTVnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> > snip
> > ...
> >> Please do not top post.
> >>
> >>
> >

A little context editing helps a lot. I used to top post all the time
but find bottom posting actually works better. I left all this crap in
to prove the point. What if SF-East Bay had edited Gary down to a line
or two and then bottom posted his one line comment?

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]

On 25.09.2008 03:37, Alan Browne typed the following::
> Gary wrote:
>> I wasn't lecturing--just stating why I like reading top posters
>> instead slogging through the same message a dozen times to get to each
>> new reply and why I think bottom posting "might" have been a
>> reasonable standard way back when. But, I think that standards can
>> and should evolve.
>
> *plonk*

*plonk*

--
PerL

"Per Larsen" <perl.news@munged.invalid> wrote in message
news:0d2dnQfCm4w_SUbV4p2dnAA@telenor.com...
> On 25.09.2008 03:37, Alan Browne typed the following::
>> Gary wrote:
>>> I wasn't lecturing--just stating why I like reading top posters instead
>>> slogging through the same message a dozen times to get to each new reply
>>> and why I think bottom posting "might" have been a reasonable standard
>>> way back when. But, I think that standards can and should evolve.
>>
>> *plonk*
>
> *plonk*
>
> --
> PerL

Sorry guys! I really didn't mean to **** anybody off!

On 26.09.2008 03:15, Gary typed the following::
>
> "Per Larsen" <perl.news@munged.invalid> wrote in message
> news:0d2dnQfCm4w_SUbV4p2dnAA@telenor.com...
>> On 25.09.2008 03:37, Alan Browne typed the following::
>>> Gary wrote:
>>>> I wasn't lecturing--just stating why I like reading top posters
>>>> instead slogging through the same message a dozen times to get to
>>>> each new reply and why I think bottom posting "might" have been a
>>>> reasonable standard way back when. But, I think that standards can
>>>> and should evolve.
>>>
>>> *plonk*
>>
>> *plonk*
>>
>> --
>> PerL
>
> Sorry guys! I really didn't mean to **** anybody off!

Well, I didn't plonk you, only the guy that plonk-ed you.

--
PerL

You bottom posted leaving a bunch of crap in so that your post wasn't
visible without scrolling. So, I just didn't bother scrolling to read what
you had to say. If I have to scroll, I don't read it.

"Robert Peirce" <bob@peirce-family.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:bob-1CB01D.11253425092008@[199.45.49.11]...
> In article <1XvCk.1323$Ws1.1111@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> "SF-East Bay'r" <not_real@notreal.net> wrote:
>
>> I agree. I never could understand why people seem to prefer bottom
>> posting.
>> Tom
>> "Gary" <gary@under-1-roof.com> wrote in message
>> news:35481$48d9936d$48097434$11732@CTITECH.COM...
>> > The rule against top posting was developed back in the time when there
>> > might be days between the time an original post hit Usenet/Bitnet and
>> > someone replied to it. The reader might like to see the o/p before
>> > they
>> > read the reply. In this day and age when replies usually come quickly
>> > after the o/p it makes no sense for readers to have to scroll through
>> > the
>> > o/p multiple times to get down to the replies. In a top post the
>> > reader
>> > can always scroll down to look at the o/p if he/she needs to refresh
>> > their
>> > memory, otherwise it's "noted and move on." IMHO, the "rule" against
>> > top
>> > posting is another case of "because that's the way we always did it!"
>> >
>> > Gary
>> > Visit Lucy & Gary and do the jigsaw puzzle at
>> > www.under-1-roof.com/PuzzlePage.html
>> >
>> >
>> > "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> > news:99-dnXhXGvadHUTVnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> > snip
>> > ...
>> >> Please do not top post.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>
> A little context editing helps a lot. I used to top post all the time
> but find bottom posting actually works better. I left all this crap in
> to prove the point. What if SF-East Bay had edited Gary down to a line
> or two and then bottom posted his one line comment?
>
> --
> Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
> bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
> rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]
>