Posted by Josepi on January 13, 2010, 4:49 pm
Well many people disagree and this is indicated quite loudly in many places
with eText/eComm systems.
BTW: I never start a book at the bottom or last page so you'll have to grow
some before you get out of the 1980s.
Because that's how one reads, from the beginning of a story to the end.
Each post is like a conversation in a novel. Someone coming late to a
thread can follow the whole conversation from the start and be up to
speed by what has transpired before.
Usenet is dead because most ISP's no longer offer it for free, and
technology has moved on with new shiny toys that take no brains at all
to use.
Josepi wrote:
> Exactly, so why would you start at the bottom with your post?
> Bottom posting arguments and other general stupidity is killing it.
> Usenet reads like a book, top posters are a pain in the ass. Doesn't
> matter anyway, usenet is dead
Posted by John Fields on January 8, 2010, 3:08 pm
>Usenet reads like a book, top posters are a pain in the ass. Doesn't
>matter anyway, usenet is dead
>Exactly, so why would you start at the bottom with your post?
---
He didn't, he _finished_ at the bottom of the thread.
Moreover, if your "Exactly" indicates agreement, then posting your
reply at the beginning of the book instead of at the end indicates that
you're as ignorant about chronolgy as you are about usenetiquette.
Little surprise from someone who reads USENET with a "browser"
---
>Bottom posting arguments and other general stupidity is killing it.
---
Bottom-posting isn't, since it's the norm for USENET posting, but
general stupidity might be, viewed in the light of your recent posts and
Google's access policies.
However, Michael B, who at:
76754153-f710-4fd0-8a3c-e30d5bca5dc8@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
stated:
"Hmm, now that I think of it, there is an
enormous number of specific-interest
groups, more being formed all the time.",
indicating that _he_ thinks USENET is growing.
Do you disagree?
JF
Posted by nospam on January 8, 2010, 3:20 pm
John Fields wrote:
>
>
>
>> Usenet reads like a book, top posters are a pain in the ass. Doesn't
>> matter anyway, usenet is dead
>
>> Exactly, so why would you start at the bottom with your post?
>
> ---
> He didn't, he _finished_ at the bottom of the thread.
>
> Moreover, if your "Exactly" indicates agreement, then posting your
> reply at the beginning of the book instead of at the end indicates that
> you're as ignorant about chronolgy as you are about usenetiquette.
>
> Little surprise from someone who reads USENET with a "browser"
> ---
>
>> Bottom posting arguments and other general stupidity is killing it.
>
> ---
> Bottom-posting isn't, since it's the norm for USENET posting, but
> general stupidity might be, viewed in the light of your recent posts and
> Google's access policies.
>
> However, Michael B, who at:
>
> 76754153-f710-4fd0-8a3c-e30d5bca5dc8@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
>
> stated:
>
> "Hmm, now that I think of it, there is an
> enormous number of specific-interest
> groups, more being formed all the time.",
>
> indicating that _he_ thinks USENET is growing.
>
> Do you disagree?
>
> JF
All of the groups I have used since 1996 have shrunk to a few members
who seem to post out of habit or are " just checking in". Some now such
as alt.culture.luddites, are so vacant they don't even have spam posts.
My ISP , as well as a number of others stopped free access to newsgroups
three years ago, which seemed to be about the time new membership in any
of the groups I used began to decline.
Posted by keithw86@gmail.com on January 8, 2010, 3:39 pm
On Jan 8, 9:20am, nos...@nevis.com wrote:
> John Fields wrote:
> >> Usenet reads like a book, top posters are a pain in the ass. Doesn't
> >> matter anyway, usenet is dead
> >> Exactly, so why would you start at the bottom with your post?
> > ---
> > He didn't, he _finished_ at the bottom of the thread.
> > Moreover, if your "Exactly" indicates agreement, then posting your
> > reply at the beginning of the book instead of at the end indicates that
> > you're as ignorant about chronolgy as you are about usenetiquette.
> > Little surprise from someone who reads USENET with a "browser"
> > ---
> >> Bottom posting arguments and other general stupidity is killing it.
> > ---
> > Bottom-posting isn't, since it's the norm for USENET posting, but
> > general stupidity might be, viewed in the light of your recent posts and
> > Google's access policies.
> > However, Michael B, who at:
> > 76754153-f710-4fd0-8a3c-e30d5bca5...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
> > stated:
> > "Hmm, now that I think of it, there is an
> > enormous number of specific-interest
> > groups, more being formed all the time.",
> > indicating that _he_ thinks USENET is growing.
> > Do you disagree?
> > JF
> All of the groups I have used since 1996 have shrunk to a few members
> who seem to post out of habit or are " just checking in". Some now such
> as alt.culture.luddites, are so vacant they don't even have spam posts.
> My ISP , as well as a number of others stopped free access to newsgroups
> three years ago, which seemed to be about the time new membership in any
> of the groups I used began to decline.
I still follow several quite active NGs. Some continue to pay for
Usenet access. I've been paying for at least five years, well before
my ISPs dropped free access. It's not expensive.
Posted by nospam on January 8, 2010, 6:17 pm
keithw86@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 8, 9:20 am, nos...@nevis.com wrote:
>> John Fields wrote:
>>>> Usenet reads like a book, top posters are a pain in the ass. Doesn't
>>>> matter anyway, usenet is dead
>>>> Exactly, so why would you start at the bottom with your post?
>>> ---
>>> He didn't, he _finished_ at the bottom of the thread.
>>> Moreover, if your "Exactly" indicates agreement, then posting your
>>> reply at the beginning of the book instead of at the end indicates that
>>> you're as ignorant about chronolgy as you are about usenetiquette.
>>> Little surprise from someone who reads USENET with a "browser"
>>> ---
>>>> Bottom posting arguments and other general stupidity is killing it.
>>> ---
>>> Bottom-posting isn't, since it's the norm for USENET posting, but
>>> general stupidity might be, viewed in the light of your recent posts and
>>> Google's access policies.
>>> However, Michael B, who at:
>>> 76754153-f710-4fd0-8a3c-e30d5bca5...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
>>> stated:
>>> "Hmm, now that I think of it, there is an
>>> enormous number of specific-interest
>>> groups, more being formed all the time.",
>>> indicating that _he_ thinks USENET is growing.
>>> Do you disagree?
>>> JF
>> All of the groups I have used since 1996 have shrunk to a few members
>> who seem to post out of habit or are " just checking in". Some now such
>> as alt.culture.luddites, are so vacant they don't even have spam posts.
>> My ISP , as well as a number of others stopped free access to newsgroups
>> three years ago, which seemed to be about the time new membership in any
>> of the groups I used began to decline.
>
> I still follow several quite active NGs. Some continue to pay for
> Usenet access. I've been paying for at least five years, well before
> my ISPs dropped free access. It's not expensive.
Most of my groups have gone from well over 100 posts a day to less than
five a week. One group I follow, Rec.antiques, had over 23,000
subscribers in 1997- 2000, now it has 605, but it goes for weeks without
anything but spam posts. It seems that no new members are coming on
board, the last one out please turn off the lights :~(((((
XML site map
> Bottom posting arguments and other general stupidity is killing it.
> Usenet reads like a book, top posters are a pain in the ass. Doesn't
> matter anyway, usenet is dead