🚀 go-pugleaf

Frank F. Matthews wrote:
> 
> 
> Al Smith wrote:
> 
>>> "Al Smith" <invalid@address.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:jfqQi.11311$G25.3392@edtnps89...
>>>
>>>>> >> Hey (mdmdmdm@nd.com) wrote:
>>>>> >> : Either TOP post or bottom post.  Don't post in the middle and 
>>>>> : leave >> all the other shit behind.  Quit being a lazy shit!
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> ***   Middle posters are almost more evil than top posters, 
>>>>> especially
>>>>> >> when they don't leave blank lines around their comments.
> 
> 
>>>>> >>    A good posting method is to intersperse comments among 
>>>>> edited, quoted
>>>>> >> text as a conversation would flow.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Richard
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> PS: Please don't top (or middle) post.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>    Thanks
> 
> 
>>>> > Middle posting depends on the post you are replying to. If it is 
>>>> long and > contains a large number of small points, it's almost 
>>>> necessary to space > the responses throughout the quoted text, 
>>>> instead of putting them all at > the bottom, where they would 
>>>> overwhelm the reader.
>>>> >
>>>> > -Al-
> 
> 
>>> Besides.  I don't get the concept of 'posting police'.  Who 
>>> determines the right way to post anyway?
> 
> 
>> They are self-appointed, like the fashion police and the political 
>> correctness police.
>>
>> The posting format is completely up to the person posting. But if they 
>> don't want a lot of comments, they must stick more or less to the 
>> established conventions.
>>
>> There are always nuts who post craziness that can't even be read. All 
>> CAPS, no punctuation, rows of symbols, solid blocks of page-long text. 
>> I don't even bother reading posts the formatting of which is far from 
>> the norm. Generally, they contain no worthwhile content.
>>
>> Top posting is just laziness, for the most part. I believe the default 
>> Windows news reader automatically positions the cursor at the top of 
>> posts, and many people can't be bothered to change it. Or maybe some 
>> of them feel that their one-line comment would get lost at the bottom 
>> of a huge thread, which (naturally) they do not bother to trim.
>>
>> -Al-
> 
> 
> Actually if you look rationally top posting make good sense.  The major 
> advantages are two fold.  First, it locates the new information at the 
> beginning of the message while retaining the message stream in a single 
> document.  To me though another significant advantage is that it 
> connects the identification of the person posting with the post in a 
> convenient manner.  For example
> 
> with top posting.
> 
> Name 3
> message 3
> 
> name 2
> message 2
> 
> name 1 message 1
> 
> with bottom posting
> 
> name 3
> 
> name 2
> 
>  > name 1
> 
>  >> message 1
> 
>  >message 2
> 
> message 3
> 
> The first format makes much more sense.  If it were not for the 
> irrational rants of the fashion police I would use it fairly 
> consistently.  Alas the Neanderthals around get off into a major fit so 
> I use the bad format for the most part.  Unless a rational poster is the 
> one I am responding to.
> 
> As a real dinosaur I have no idea why the Neanderthals get their 
> knickers in such a twit but they do.
> 
> I agree that middle posting sometimes makes sense in the situation you 
> note.
> 
> 
> As far as trimming of posts is concerned given the identifications I 
> mention it is usually done so badly that unless line prefixes are 
> carefully counted individuals often appear to have said something that 
> is actually the responsibility of another.  Or it trims so much that you 
> have no idea what the message is a response to without a long search 
> thru the message tree.
Yeah Frank...I too am a top poster. ( forgive this transgression )  I 
can't wait to see Richard's response.  Yawn...