🚀 go-pugleaf

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.