Myth 1) Any newsreader is in any way responsible for what anyone posts.
Bottom posting must be a term coined by top posters who don't understand
why top posting doesn't work very well. Bottom posting is just as silly
as top posting.
No historical newsreaders ever forced any type of posting, just like
no current ones do. That deficiency has always been the human, not the
Microsoft doesn't have that word in its company dictionary.
There are no rigid rules. People have spent time working out how
to communicate effectively. That's where the guidelines come from.
If you count mistakes as negative numbers, this post of yours is
probably nearly -100%.
The context is part of that. Try moving all my comments to the
top of this posting and then appending your original underneath.
That would be a really silly thing to do, wouldn't it?
Order is necessary, and is the reason this newsgroup has survived
as a useful resource when many haven't (uk.legal probably being the
biggest loss in the uk newsgroups).
My time to wade through loads of irrelevant nested quoted text means
I'll likely just skip that article.
Struggling ISP's have just let their news service fall to bits.
That, like no snipping, is just another form of incorrect snipping.
It's kind of Dawinistic.
Feel free to try a change. If it works, people will take to it.
I find top posting very useful -- it gives me a an instant impression
of the poster without me having to bother reading a word, which
depending to some extent on the newsgroup, is usually very accurate.
This is more true in computer related newsgroups, but holds in most
technical newsgroups including this one.
I assume you want those following the thread to do so or you wouldn't
It must be terrible to lead a life where you are ashamed of what you say.
The credibility of anyone who tries to hide their identity is pretty
non-existant, and consequently their contributions start from a much lower
BTW, I found out after getting my current job that that my usenet
postings were a significant factor in me getting it, so it was a good
thing my employer could identify me on Usenet.
ag> Microsoft doesn't have [standard] in its company dictionary.
Of course they do. It's defined as `something you make up for a joke
on a slow Friday afternoon after a liquid lunch then have to pretend
makes sense for the next decade' .
Mail me as snipped-for-privacy@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
You ignore the stark reality that if in any society you decide to do
something which annoys most people in that society then you cannot be
surprised if their reaction is not favourable to you. If you WANT to
communicate in that society you need to conform to the norms. Of course
if you don't want to communicate you are free to piss people off and
then be subsequently ignored.
All the rest of the stuff I snipped is not relevant to this simple fact.
I don't like reading replies that are top posted, I am much less likely
to respond to or take notice of top posted replies. I am not alone in
this, if you don't like it then tough.
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland
| Myth 4) Snipping is always necessary.
| 1) Memory and bandwidth are now such that snipping is totally unnecessary
| in a top posting system.
Perhaps in this, and other developed countries. In less-developed countries
bandwidth is still a rare and expensive commodity.
However, clear snipping and posting order are essential to readers using
assistive technology such as text-to-speech or tactile output. Reading those
forms of output is much slower than skim-reading a visual screen, so
unneccessary content should be removed. Most newsreaders are optimised for
top-posting and correct quoting.
| 2) Maybe we can get some of our readers back to work if we all try to use
| more bandwidth and force telecomm companies to increase their capacity!
Only if someone (we) are prepared to pay for it.
| 3) Snipping can on occasions distort the reasoning of the participants.
It shouldn't, if done correctly. It helps following an argument, because
clear snipping and interleaving comments means there is no doubt about to
which part of a post a poster is responding.
Your figures are from what source? I'd be very surprised if it was
anything like 98% in *this* group judging by the UA strings I've seen.
Read one of my replies to EssJay; Mozilla is *bottom* posting by default
but with an option to top post, mainly for use with e-mail where company
policy dictates this.
ROFLMAO. I don't know what you're smoking but I'd stop it, it's causing
[remaining pointless ramblings snipped]
I suggest you go and read RFC1855 "Netiquette Guidelines"
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html section 3.1.1, particularly the
para beginning "If you are sending a reply to a message".
Also read http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html particularly section 3.1,
first bullet point, and section 3.2
These are the rules of Usenet (the latter being specific to the uk.*
hierarchy). Now these rules aren't enforced by law so no-one's going to
lock you up for not following them but this is how the Internet works,
by users voluntarily adhering to agreed rules (mainly RFCs), and people
that don't adhere to them will get grief.
There is a mechanism to change these rules (RFDs I believe) so if you
really believe that top-posting should become the standard then you, or
maybe Microsoft, should propose a change to RFC1855.
This particular group has a rather basic charter but some, e.g.
uk.comp.os.win2000, have more comprhensive charters. The one for
u.c.o.win2000 expicitly forbids top-posting. See
(they refer to it as "upside down quoting").
But even if it was, the latest *post* in a thread goes to the top of the
list - unless that's something else OE screws up.
Nor have I ever seen a memo where all the previous correspondence on the
subject is copied - either on top or below.
*I wish the buck stopped here. I could use a few.
Dave Plowman email@example.com London SW 12
In a court of law the prosecution would tend to use the information in
the highway code, regardless of whether it was legislated or not.
If you think about it a "law" is a rule by which we are expected to
abide in our civilised society, it says "this is right, that is
So if it's in the highway code then the emphasis is on it being the
correct practice to use in a given situation. Do something else and
you might find yourself on the wrong end of a prosecution case.
Do you need a handyman service? Check out our
web site at http://www.handymac.co.uk
You can't be prosecuted for breaking a law that doesn't exist. However, if
you were involved in an accident, say, where you'd ignored the rules of
the HC that aren't law this could be taken into consideration.
It's all explained in the HC introduction.
*Why is it called tourist season if we can't shoot at them?
Dave Plowman firstname.lastname@example.org London SW 12
Posting style isn't a protocol; OE merely puts the cursor at the top
when replying to a post. Ctrl-End will shift it to the bottom.
I fail to understand the logic of that statement. In NGs like this one
posts tend to be question and answer sessions so if you top post then
the answer appears before the question - have you ever seen a FAQ
written that way?
In my experience, when you use Google groups the matches are often in
the middle of a thread and, if they are top posted, then you have to
scroll down to read what it is a reply to.
It isn't that the *newsreaders* can't *cope* with top posting, it's the
people who don't like it. It certainly isn't a minority taste; quite the
contrary in fact. In the majority of Usenet groups top posting is
With respect Capitol, Microsoft is *not* the standard. The Internet is a
platform-independent. OS-independent, hardware-independent medium;
no-one owns it, the standards are defined by agreement, e.g. RFCs and
the W3C (of which MS is a member).
Asserting that OE is the standard for news is the same as those who
assert that Internet Explorer is the standard for the Web and code
webpages full of IE-specific code that doesn't display properly, or at
all, in other browsers. Now, if they are just their own personal
webpages, then they are free to do that, but if they are coding webpages
for commercial sites (by which I mean sites that are selling on-line)
then they stand to lose business for that company (as am example, Argos
has lost business from me because their site only worked in IE - it now
works in all browsers). They may (and do) argue that non-IE browsers
only account for 5% of web users (a figure that is doubtless wildly
inaccurate) but I bet you'll not find a bean counter in the world who
would shrug their shoulds at lost revenue and say, "it doesn't matter,
it's only 5%".
I have read, on more than one occassion, people with the view that MS is
the standard (for the web) make statements like, "stuff the W3C; MS sets
the standard", which shows an incredible ignorance of what the web and
the W3C is. MS is one of many companies and groups who ratify the
standards for the Web and IE, since v5, has supported these standards.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.