Germany Trip
Nov 14th 2004, 3:48 am
#46
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Filters and posting styles.
In article <131120041052257717%[email protected]>, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In fact I've had to quit using ignore
>> thread except for political intrusions because I have occasionally
>> dropped back in and found that something dull had morphed into an
>> interesting thread.
>you clearly do not understand that filters do more than just 'kill'
I don't understand either. What else do they do?
>> In fact I've had to quit using ignore
>> thread except for political intrusions because I have occasionally
>> dropped back in and found that something dull had morphed into an
>> interesting thread.
>you clearly do not understand that filters do more than just 'kill'
I don't understand either. What else do they do?
Nov 14th 2004, 3:49 am
#47
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Filters and posting styles.
In article <[email protected]>,
Wolfgang Schwanke <[email protected]> wrote:
>Because it's confusing when reading a series of replies.
>> But why is top posting so irritating?
>>> Top posting.
>>>> What's the most irritating thing on usenet?
What is?
Wolfgang Schwanke <[email protected]> wrote:
>Because it's confusing when reading a series of replies.
>> But why is top posting so irritating?
>>> Top posting.
>>>> What's the most irritating thing on usenet?
What is?
Nov 14th 2004, 4:07 am
#48
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Filters and posting styles.
In article <[email protected]>, Bill Moore
<[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <131120041052257717%[email protected]>, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> In fact I've had to quit using ignore
> >> thread except for political intrusions because I have occasionally
> >> dropped back in and found that something dull had morphed into an
> >> interesting thread.
> >
> >you clearly do not understand that filters do more than just 'kill'
>
> I don't understand either. What else do they do?
Score and highlight.
jay
Sun Nov 14, 2004
mailto:[email protected]
<[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <131120041052257717%[email protected]>, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> In fact I've had to quit using ignore
> >> thread except for political intrusions because I have occasionally
> >> dropped back in and found that something dull had morphed into an
> >> interesting thread.
> >
> >you clearly do not understand that filters do more than just 'kill'
>
> I don't understand either. What else do they do?
Score and highlight.
jay
Sun Nov 14, 2004
mailto:[email protected]
Nov 14th 2004, 4:23 am
#49
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Filters and posting styles.
The reason that bottom posting is confusing is shown below. News
readers are set up for top posting. The reference to the author of the
last comment is placed at the top of the previous information. To see
what CDBB said below requires skipping my initial comment until you get
to what CDBB entered. After four or five additions it gets impossibly
complicated making it necessary to careful count > symbols to keep
things straight.
As to reading the content of the thread I suppose it depends on where
you come in. If you are trying to catch up then it does make it a bit
counter intuitive.
An additional problem with the separation of the citations from the
quotes comes into play when folks start to snip information prior to
their reply. Now I can see trimming the junk. Unfortunately it is all
to common to leave the citation for the last post but be responding to a
post from 2 or 3 back.
I still see top posting as the way to go. If you can get the news
readers changed to connect the citations decently I would be willing to
switch but for now top makes more sense.
chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn wrote:
> Frank F. Matthews <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>I persist because it makes sense and keeps the references reasonably
>>straight.
>
>
> But, it _doesn't_ make sense. The post to which I followed-up was a good
> example. You began by saying "nope" yet the reader has to read further
> down the post to see what you're following up to. It also doesn't help
> that you frequently don't trim your posts enough, leaving a lot of
> information that you're not directly responding to. This means the
> reader having to scroll even further down to see what you're referring
> to.
>
> There's a good reason that top-posting is considered bad netiquette.
> It's not just about being fixated by rules for the sake of them.
>
readers are set up for top posting. The reference to the author of the
last comment is placed at the top of the previous information. To see
what CDBB said below requires skipping my initial comment until you get
to what CDBB entered. After four or five additions it gets impossibly
complicated making it necessary to careful count > symbols to keep
things straight.
As to reading the content of the thread I suppose it depends on where
you come in. If you are trying to catch up then it does make it a bit
counter intuitive.
An additional problem with the separation of the citations from the
quotes comes into play when folks start to snip information prior to
their reply. Now I can see trimming the junk. Unfortunately it is all
to common to leave the citation for the last post but be responding to a
post from 2 or 3 back.
I still see top posting as the way to go. If you can get the news
readers changed to connect the citations decently I would be willing to
switch but for now top makes more sense.
chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn wrote:
> Frank F. Matthews <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>I persist because it makes sense and keeps the references reasonably
>>straight.
>
>
> But, it _doesn't_ make sense. The post to which I followed-up was a good
> example. You began by saying "nope" yet the reader has to read further
> down the post to see what you're following up to. It also doesn't help
> that you frequently don't trim your posts enough, leaving a lot of
> information that you're not directly responding to. This means the
> reader having to scroll even further down to see what you're referring
> to.
>
> There's a good reason that top-posting is considered bad netiquette.
> It's not just about being fixated by rules for the sake of them.
>
Nov 14th 2004, 4:30 am
#50
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Filters and posting styles.
Alas, Wolfgang, what is confusing is to have no idea who said anything
between your comment below and mine. Even if the citations had been
left in it would be confusing to have to count >s to connect them.
I suppose that it's a problem that something will be confusing. I find
the mess of references to who said what confusing while you find the
previous information occurring before the current comment confusing.
Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> Because it's confusing when reading a series of replies.
>>But why is top posting so irritating?
>>>Top posting.
>>>>What's the most irritating thing on usenet?
> "Frank F. Matthews" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>>I persist because it makes sense and keeps the references reasonably
>>straight.
between your comment below and mine. Even if the citations had been
left in it would be confusing to have to count >s to connect them.
I suppose that it's a problem that something will be confusing. I find
the mess of references to who said what confusing while you find the
previous information occurring before the current comment confusing.
Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> Because it's confusing when reading a series of replies.
>>But why is top posting so irritating?
>>>Top posting.
>>>>What's the most irritating thing on usenet?
> "Frank F. Matthews" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>>I persist because it makes sense and keeps the references reasonably
>>straight.
Nov 14th 2004, 4:42 am
#51
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Filters and posting styles.
Frank F. Matthews <[email protected]> wrote:
> The reason that bottom posting is confusing is shown below.
[]
It was only confusing because you chose to reply by top posting.
> News
> readers are set up for top posting.
Why do the vast majority of regular posters here bottom post then? Do
you think that it is extraordinarily inconvenient for them?
That's simply not an argument.
> Now I can see trimming the junk. Unfortunately it is all
> to common to leave the citation for the last post but be responding to a
> post from 2 or 3 back.
Which can be annoying.
> I still see top posting as the way to go.
It's not the way to go. It's bad netiquette.
> If you can get the news
> readers changed to connect the citations decently I would be willing to
> switch but for now top makes more sense.
In your previous responses, you've given other arguments for top
posting- and even conceded that on some occasions, you would bottom
post. Now, it's the problem of the newsreader?
I ask again, if it's so _hard_ to bottom post, why do most regulars here
manage to do it?
David
--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
> The reason that bottom posting is confusing is shown below.
[]
It was only confusing because you chose to reply by top posting.
> News
> readers are set up for top posting.
Why do the vast majority of regular posters here bottom post then? Do
you think that it is extraordinarily inconvenient for them?
That's simply not an argument.
> Now I can see trimming the junk. Unfortunately it is all
> to common to leave the citation for the last post but be responding to a
> post from 2 or 3 back.
Which can be annoying.
> I still see top posting as the way to go.
It's not the way to go. It's bad netiquette.
> If you can get the news
> readers changed to connect the citations decently I would be willing to
> switch but for now top makes more sense.
In your previous responses, you've given other arguments for top
posting- and even conceded that on some occasions, you would bottom
post. Now, it's the problem of the newsreader?
I ask again, if it's so _hard_ to bottom post, why do most regulars here
manage to do it?
David
--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
Nov 14th 2004, 8:58 am
#52
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Filters and posting styles.
chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn wrote:
> Frank F. Matthews <[email protected]> wrote:
>>The reason that bottom posting is confusing is shown below.
> It was only confusing because you chose to reply by top posting.
I was referring to the postings that were below which were bottom posted.
>>News
>>readers are set up for top posting.
> Why do the vast majority of regular posters here bottom post then? Do
> you think that it is extraordinarily inconvenient for them?
> That's simply not an argument.
Don't create straw men. Top posting or bottom posting is simply setting
a default option.
>>Now I can see trimming the junk. Unfortunately it is all
>>to common to leave the citation for the last post but be responding to a
>>post from 2 or 3 back.
> Which can be annoying.
>>I still see top posting as the way to go.
> It's not the way to go. It's bad netiquette.
>>If you can get the news
>>readers changed to connect the citations decently I would be willing to
>>switch but for now top makes more sense.
> In your previous responses, you've given other arguments for top
> posting- and even conceded that on some occasions, you would bottom
> post. Now, it's the problem of the newsreader?
No I bottom post, or intersperse, when it makes sense. If you've paid
some attention when there is a long sequence of bottom posts I continue
it even if I think the technique is silly. When given a reasonable
choice I prefer to top post since I believe that it makes more sense.
> I ask again, if it's so _hard_ to bottom post, why do most regulars here
> manage to do it?
> David
It's not that it is hard to top post or to bottom post. Most readers
give you a default option. The point is that if you bottom post the
placement of the citation is at the top and the information is at the
bottom. In effect you start from the original post and work outward.
This results in situations like the following
B said
>C said
>>B said
>>>A said
>>>>A's contents 1 original
>>>B's contents 1 #2
>>C's contents 1 #3
>B's contents 2 #4
A's contents 2 #5
As opposed to top posting where the linkage to the person is clearer
while the sequence is reversed.
A's contents 2 #5
B said
>B's contents 2 #4
>C said
>>C's contents 1 #3
>>B said
>>>B's contents 1 #2
>>>A said
>>>>A's contents 1 original
I simply find the second situation more reasonable and easier to work
with. Especially since I often remember much of the previous argument
having just read several of the immediate preceding posts. Which brings
up a problem with bottom posting -- moving down thru the stuff that you
already have seen.
> Frank F. Matthews <[email protected]> wrote:
>>The reason that bottom posting is confusing is shown below.
> It was only confusing because you chose to reply by top posting.
I was referring to the postings that were below which were bottom posted.
>>News
>>readers are set up for top posting.
> Why do the vast majority of regular posters here bottom post then? Do
> you think that it is extraordinarily inconvenient for them?
> That's simply not an argument.
Don't create straw men. Top posting or bottom posting is simply setting
a default option.
>>Now I can see trimming the junk. Unfortunately it is all
>>to common to leave the citation for the last post but be responding to a
>>post from 2 or 3 back.
> Which can be annoying.
>>I still see top posting as the way to go.
> It's not the way to go. It's bad netiquette.
>>If you can get the news
>>readers changed to connect the citations decently I would be willing to
>>switch but for now top makes more sense.
> In your previous responses, you've given other arguments for top
> posting- and even conceded that on some occasions, you would bottom
> post. Now, it's the problem of the newsreader?
No I bottom post, or intersperse, when it makes sense. If you've paid
some attention when there is a long sequence of bottom posts I continue
it even if I think the technique is silly. When given a reasonable
choice I prefer to top post since I believe that it makes more sense.
> I ask again, if it's so _hard_ to bottom post, why do most regulars here
> manage to do it?
> David
It's not that it is hard to top post or to bottom post. Most readers
give you a default option. The point is that if you bottom post the
placement of the citation is at the top and the information is at the
bottom. In effect you start from the original post and work outward.
This results in situations like the following
B said
>C said
>>B said
>>>A said
>>>>A's contents 1 original
>>>B's contents 1 #2
>>C's contents 1 #3
>B's contents 2 #4
A's contents 2 #5
As opposed to top posting where the linkage to the person is clearer
while the sequence is reversed.
A's contents 2 #5
B said
>B's contents 2 #4
>C said
>>C's contents 1 #3
>>B said
>>>B's contents 1 #2
>>>A said
>>>>A's contents 1 original
I simply find the second situation more reasonable and easier to work
with. Especially since I often remember much of the previous argument
having just read several of the immediate preceding posts. Which brings
up a problem with bottom posting -- moving down thru the stuff that you
already have seen.
Nov 14th 2004, 9:10 am
#53
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Filters and posting styles.
Frank F. Matthews <[email protected]> wrote:
> chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn wrote:
> > Frank F. Matthews <[email protected]> wrote:
[]
> >>News
> >>readers are set up for top posting.
>
> > Why do the vast majority of regular posters here bottom post then? Do
> > you think that it is extraordinarily inconvenient for them?
> > That's simply not an argument.
>
> Don't create straw men. Top posting or bottom posting is simply setting
> a default option.
You brought up the straw man, i.e. that newsreaders are set up for top
posting.
It's more than just a 'default' option. The fact that for newsreaders,
bottom posting is _not_ the default, yet it's considered a 'good thing'
_to_ bottom post should surely suggest that it's about more than just
what a piece of software dictates.
[]
> > In your previous responses, you've given other arguments for top
> > posting- and even conceded that on some occasions, you would bottom
> > post. Now, it's the problem of the newsreader?
>
> No I bottom post, or intersperse, when it makes sense. If you've paid
> some attention when there is a long sequence of bottom posts I continue
> it even if I think the technique is silly. When given a reasonable
> choice I prefer to top post since I believe that it makes more sense.
So you say, yet it doesn't. If you think that the reader needn't bother
first with the text you're responding to, and therefore you put your
comments first, then it begs the question why you bother quoting the
other text at all. If you read your posts, what you often do when you
top post is quote the entire previous post with no editing whatsoever,
and just add your comments at the top. It's laziness.
[]
> It's not that it is hard to top post or to bottom post. Most readers
> give you a default option. The point is that if you bottom post the
> placement of the citation is at the top and the information is at the
> bottom. In effect you start from the original post and work outward.
> This results in situations like the following
>
> B said
> >C said
> >>B said
> >>>A said
> >>>>A's contents 1 original
> >>>B's contents 1 #2
> >>C's contents 1 #3
> >B's contents 2 #4
> A's contents 2 #5
>
> As opposed to top posting where the linkage to the person is clearer
> while the sequence is reversed.
And yet the majority of regular posters here don't seem to have a
problem with this. What you do, in effect, when you decide to 'simplify'
the process with top-posting, is in essence to clog up a thread. The
user gets used to a generally accepted and recommended formatting, i.e.
bottom posting, and then you interrupt that.
>
> A's contents 2 #5
> B said
> >B's contents 2 #4
> >C said
> >>C's contents 1 #3
> >>B said
> >>>B's contents 1 #2
> >>>A said
> >>>>A's contents 1 original
>
> I simply find the second situation more reasonable and easier to work
> with. Especially since I often remember much of the previous argument
> having just read several of the immediate preceding posts.
Good for you, but quoting text is about giving context to your posts,
and bottom posting more clearly shows the order in which you're doing
that.
> Which brings
> up a problem with bottom posting -- moving down thru the stuff that you
> already have seen.
So learn to trim for context then.
David
--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
> chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn wrote:
> > Frank F. Matthews <[email protected]> wrote:
[]
> >>News
> >>readers are set up for top posting.
>
> > Why do the vast majority of regular posters here bottom post then? Do
> > you think that it is extraordinarily inconvenient for them?
> > That's simply not an argument.
>
> Don't create straw men. Top posting or bottom posting is simply setting
> a default option.
You brought up the straw man, i.e. that newsreaders are set up for top
posting.
It's more than just a 'default' option. The fact that for newsreaders,
bottom posting is _not_ the default, yet it's considered a 'good thing'
_to_ bottom post should surely suggest that it's about more than just
what a piece of software dictates.
[]
> > In your previous responses, you've given other arguments for top
> > posting- and even conceded that on some occasions, you would bottom
> > post. Now, it's the problem of the newsreader?
>
> No I bottom post, or intersperse, when it makes sense. If you've paid
> some attention when there is a long sequence of bottom posts I continue
> it even if I think the technique is silly. When given a reasonable
> choice I prefer to top post since I believe that it makes more sense.
So you say, yet it doesn't. If you think that the reader needn't bother
first with the text you're responding to, and therefore you put your
comments first, then it begs the question why you bother quoting the
other text at all. If you read your posts, what you often do when you
top post is quote the entire previous post with no editing whatsoever,
and just add your comments at the top. It's laziness.
[]
> It's not that it is hard to top post or to bottom post. Most readers
> give you a default option. The point is that if you bottom post the
> placement of the citation is at the top and the information is at the
> bottom. In effect you start from the original post and work outward.
> This results in situations like the following
>
> B said
> >C said
> >>B said
> >>>A said
> >>>>A's contents 1 original
> >>>B's contents 1 #2
> >>C's contents 1 #3
> >B's contents 2 #4
> A's contents 2 #5
>
> As opposed to top posting where the linkage to the person is clearer
> while the sequence is reversed.
And yet the majority of regular posters here don't seem to have a
problem with this. What you do, in effect, when you decide to 'simplify'
the process with top-posting, is in essence to clog up a thread. The
user gets used to a generally accepted and recommended formatting, i.e.
bottom posting, and then you interrupt that.
>
> A's contents 2 #5
> B said
> >B's contents 2 #4
> >C said
> >>C's contents 1 #3
> >>B said
> >>>B's contents 1 #2
> >>>A said
> >>>>A's contents 1 original
>
> I simply find the second situation more reasonable and easier to work
> with. Especially since I often remember much of the previous argument
> having just read several of the immediate preceding posts.
Good for you, but quoting text is about giving context to your posts,
and bottom posting more clearly shows the order in which you're doing
that.
> Which brings
> up a problem with bottom posting -- moving down thru the stuff that you
> already have seen.
So learn to trim for context then.
David
--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
Nov 14th 2004, 9:56 am
#54
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Filters and posting styles.
[email protected] (Bill Moore) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Wolfgang Schwanke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Because it's confusing when reading a series of replies.
>>> But why is top posting so irritating?
>>>> Top posting.
>>>>> What's the most irritating thing on usenet?
>What is?
Q.E.D.
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Wolfgang Schwanke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Because it's confusing when reading a series of replies.
>>> But why is top posting so irritating?
>>>> Top posting.
>>>>> What's the most irritating thing on usenet?
>What is?
Q.E.D.
Nov 14th 2004, 10:00 am
#55
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Filters and posting styles.
"Frank F. Matthews" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I persist because it makes sense and keeps the references reasonably
>straight. [etc.]
You persist in what?
Oh, I see. By reading the remainder of your post, then coming back up
to the top, finally figured out what your opening statement meant.
Thanks for providing a good example demonstrating the absurdity of top
posting -- I fully agree with you. Or is that not what you intended?
--
"... a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the
facts is not a person you want as your Commander in Chief".
George W. Bush Oct 26, 2004
>I persist because it makes sense and keeps the references reasonably
>straight. [etc.]
You persist in what?
Oh, I see. By reading the remainder of your post, then coming back up
to the top, finally figured out what your opening statement meant.
Thanks for providing a good example demonstrating the absurdity of top
posting -- I fully agree with you. Or is that not what you intended?
--
"... a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the
facts is not a person you want as your Commander in Chief".
George W. Bush Oct 26, 2004
Nov 14th 2004, 11:16 am
#56
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Germany Trip
In article <[email protected] .net>,
Gregory Morrow <[email protected]> wrote:
>That was a wonderful time to be alive. Here in Chicago I was shopping at a
>German delicatessen (on the way home from my health club) the day of 9
>November, I was listening to the radio on my Walkman when I heard the news
>about the East Berliners being allowed to the west...I told the employees of
>the delicatessen what was happening, then ran home to turn on the TV and to
>call my friends in West Berlin...
That evening, I turned on the TV shortly after the 6pm local news
broadcast had started. Of course, they normally focus on South Carolina
news, so I was a bit surprised to see them talking about Berlin. My first
thought was, "gee, they're going on so much about Berlin, you'd think the
Wall had come down." A few minutes later I realized that that was exactly
what had appened, in effect. I turned on the VCR for the NBC national
news at 6:30, and got Tom Brokaw reporting live from in front of the
Brandenburg Gate, first with water cannons shooting from behind the Wall,
then with people standing on top and chipping off pieces.
My wife (who teaches German) had gone off to Atlanta that day for a
language teachers' conference, so I was alone in the house. I just *had*
to talk to someone about what I had just seen, so I left to drive over to
campus and find someone... and in my agitated frame of mind, I forgot my
house keys and locked myself out of the house! Fortunately, I did have my
car keys on a separate keyring, so I drove to a colleague's house, where
we called a locksmith to get me back in.
--
Jon Bell <[email protected]> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
Gregory Morrow <[email protected]> wrote:
>That was a wonderful time to be alive. Here in Chicago I was shopping at a
>German delicatessen (on the way home from my health club) the day of 9
>November, I was listening to the radio on my Walkman when I heard the news
>about the East Berliners being allowed to the west...I told the employees of
>the delicatessen what was happening, then ran home to turn on the TV and to
>call my friends in West Berlin...
That evening, I turned on the TV shortly after the 6pm local news
broadcast had started. Of course, they normally focus on South Carolina
news, so I was a bit surprised to see them talking about Berlin. My first
thought was, "gee, they're going on so much about Berlin, you'd think the
Wall had come down." A few minutes later I realized that that was exactly
what had appened, in effect. I turned on the VCR for the NBC national
news at 6:30, and got Tom Brokaw reporting live from in front of the
Brandenburg Gate, first with water cannons shooting from behind the Wall,
then with people standing on top and chipping off pieces.
My wife (who teaches German) had gone off to Atlanta that day for a
language teachers' conference, so I was alone in the house. I just *had*
to talk to someone about what I had just seen, so I left to drive over to
campus and find someone... and in my agitated frame of mind, I forgot my
house keys and locked myself out of the house! Fortunately, I did have my
car keys on a separate keyring, so I drove to a colleague's house, where
we called a locksmith to get me back in.
--
Jon Bell <[email protected]> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
Nov 14th 2004, 3:21 pm
#57
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Filters and posting styles.
I suspect that the difference is between folks who read a thread in
sequence and folks who drop in on occasion. Since the previous posting
had a question as to why I persist I felt it would be useful to respond
to it. Since I expect that folks would have already seen the post I
respond at the top. While it might have been simpler to delete the
previous comment from the post I left it for anyone who wanted to go
looking. It still makes sense to me.
Charles Hawtrey wrote:
> You persist in what?
> Oh, I see. By reading the remainder of your post, then coming back up
> to the top, finally figured out what your opening statement meant.
> Thanks for providing a good example demonstrating the absurdity of top
> posting -- I fully agree with you. Or is that not what you intended?
> "Frank F. Matthews" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>I persist because it makes sense and keeps the references reasonably
>>straight. [etc.]
sequence and folks who drop in on occasion. Since the previous posting
had a question as to why I persist I felt it would be useful to respond
to it. Since I expect that folks would have already seen the post I
respond at the top. While it might have been simpler to delete the
previous comment from the post I left it for anyone who wanted to go
looking. It still makes sense to me.
Charles Hawtrey wrote:
> You persist in what?
> Oh, I see. By reading the remainder of your post, then coming back up
> to the top, finally figured out what your opening statement meant.
> Thanks for providing a good example demonstrating the absurdity of top
> posting -- I fully agree with you. Or is that not what you intended?
> "Frank F. Matthews" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>I persist because it makes sense and keeps the references reasonably
>>straight. [etc.]
Nov 14th 2004, 4:44 pm
#58
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Filters and posting styles.
Frank F. Matthews wrote:
> The reason that bottom posting is confusing is shown below. News
> readers are set up for top posting.
No, they're not. The news reader I'm posting this message with properly
sets the cursor at the end of the post. Top posting is illogical, as
is not properly trimming and quoting the post(s) to which you are
replying. Top posting also disrupts the logical flow of the threaded
conversation.
A: Top posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
--
dgs
> The reason that bottom posting is confusing is shown below. News
> readers are set up for top posting.
No, they're not. The news reader I'm posting this message with properly
sets the cursor at the end of the post. Top posting is illogical, as
is not properly trimming and quoting the post(s) to which you are
replying. Top posting also disrupts the logical flow of the threaded
conversation.
A: Top posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
--
dgs
Nov 14th 2004, 6:41 pm
#59
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Filters and posting styles.
Frank F. Matthews <[email protected]> wrote:
> Alas, Wolfgang, what is confusing is to have no idea who said anything
> between your comment below and mine. Even if the citations had been
> left in it would be confusing to have to count >s to connect them.
There are newsreaders that will color-code them for you.
miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
> Alas, Wolfgang, what is confusing is to have no idea who said anything
> between your comment below and mine. Even if the citations had been
> left in it would be confusing to have to count >s to connect them.
There are newsreaders that will color-code them for you.
miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
Nov 14th 2004, 10:35 pm
#60
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Germany Trip
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Ron)
wrote:
> I am planning a trip to Germany and Paris next April. In Germany I have
> narrowed down my destination down to either Hamburg or Berlin.
Hamburg is not at all uninteresting, but if you have to choose between the
two, Berlin is the more exciting choice.
You should try to find some time to see at least one of the smaller cities
in Germany, though (unless you're an incurable big-city addict). The big
German cities tend to be...well, big, and a bit impersonal, a bit
difficult to become comfortable with on a short visit. Two of my
favourites are Mainz and Bamberg.
What do you mean by "exotic entertainment"? (We're all grown-ups here!)
wrote:
> I am planning a trip to Germany and Paris next April. In Germany I have
> narrowed down my destination down to either Hamburg or Berlin.
Hamburg is not at all uninteresting, but if you have to choose between the
two, Berlin is the more exciting choice.
You should try to find some time to see at least one of the smaller cities
in Germany, though (unless you're an incurable big-city addict). The big
German cities tend to be...well, big, and a bit impersonal, a bit
difficult to become comfortable with on a short visit. Two of my
favourites are Mainz and Bamberg.
What do you mean by "exotic entertainment"? (We're all grown-ups here!)
