Village idiot

[BobS]

Nah.....they're just a bunch o' wimps.... I didn't even get to break a sweat. Packing it up fer the day and we'll try a little trolling tomorrow to see who we can reel in......;-)

Bob S.

[Markem]

Nope

And you reacted to said snide comment.

One suggestion be a duck.

Mark (sixoneeight) = 618

[BobS]

Ya know Mark, I spent 20 years defending these village idiots. Enough - no more cheek-turning or putting up with their bullshit.

[lwasserm]

Yes it is ambiguous. Perhaps one reason it has the disclaimer about being an internet standard is that usenet predates the internet, in the form that we know it today, anyway.

[Markem]

Mark (sixoneeight) = 618

[BobS]

Larry,

You have a good memory. Back around 1966 I worked on the world's largest computer systems at the time (SAGE) and we used a form of email then between centers and radar sites that was unique to SAGE (Semi-Automatic Ground Environment). Then about '69, I moved over to Autodin (Automatic Digital Network) where email (as we know it) really took off. Course it was all text messaging back then - and get this - all top-posting too! The screens were for the most part, not screen's but teletype machines using Baudot 5 bit code. While working at the underground in Omaha (SAC Command Center) we jerry-rigged an IBM electric typewriter to replace the teletype. About 30 days later, IBM had a working Selectric on the SACC's system (SAC Command and Control).

I get a chuckle out of some of the comments made here about not knowing anything of USENET......;-)

Thanks for the trip down memory lane....

Bob S.

[CW]

See, a lot of us still do it right.

[DJ Delorie]

Top posting is proper when (1) you're talking *about* the referenced text, but not *in reply to* it, and (2) when the reader is blind and using a screen reader, which starts at the top. Yes, they have to hear the whole thread, over and over again, just to hear the new part at the bottom. At least, that was what I used to hear from them. Hopefully their software is smart enough to cope with that problem now.

Bottom posting is proper when the result reads like a conversation in a book.

While bottom posting is the more common format, it only works when you trim the included message. It's amazing how many people just copy the whole huge message and only add a tiny bit. It used to be that the news servers would reject messages that had more referenced text than new text. Sigh, those were the days.

When done right, you end up with interleaved text - each part of the original message you're replying to (trimmed to the minimum necessary), has your reply under it, followed by the next bit of the original message, then your reply to that, etc; and most of the post is new text.

[CW]

That is the major problem. I get very tired of having to scroll down half a page or more to read a response. I already know what has been previously said, and if I don't, I can look. Bottom posting forces me to look at useless information and actively skip past it. It is not at all unusual to have a full page of text with a one line reply underneath it. It is far easier to have software that eliminates the problem then try to train everyone to become a skilled editor, or to give a crap. Top posting is slowly taking over, for the better.

[todd]

It's especially useful when one does a newsgroup archive search and finds a long response. I especially love starting and the bottom and reading backwards...it's so efficient. Truth be told, the biggest problem isn't bottom- or top-posting, it's that everyone doesn't do the same thing. So, we end up with the worst case, messages that combine both.

todd

[Odinn]

On 4/30/2006 1:29 AM CW mumbled something about the following:

Here's where you need a PROPER news reader that compresses all the replied to text to just one line. I don't have to scroll through much of anything.

The following is what I saw of the previous message that was properly BOTTOM posted

------------------- "CW" writes: > + See, a lot of us still do it right.

Top posting is proper when (1) you're talking *about* the referenced text, but not *in reply to* it, and (2) when the reader is blind and [ rest snipped for brevity ]

----------------------

With a proper newsreader configured properly (OE is not a proper news reader and is barely a proper email client), one doesn't have to scroll through the message. If you need a reference to what was being replied, you expand the compressed section (where the + is).

Part of the reason for bottom posting is because USENET doesn't guarantee delivery of messages and may deliver messages in the wrong order. Let's say for example, my news server didn't get your earlier message, but it got DJ's reply. The logical flow of the message would make sense (since I never saw the original message). Reading from the bottom doesn't, especially if my news server missed SEVERAL messages in the thread before I got to read one.

[DJ Delorie]

Try a different example. I only included that one line when I replied, so *everyone* saw that ;-)