Please Register and login to reply and use other advanced options
Posted by Baron on January 8, 2010, 2:10 pm
Josepi Inscribed thus:
Posted by John Fields on January 8, 2010, 2:38 pm
That's done as a courtesy to those who are reading the thread for the
first time as it allows them to read the thread using what most of us
accept as conventional chronology.
I suppose you regard it as an unfair intelligence test since you seem to
have so much trouble navigating the thread by moving the "curser" to the
salient part of the thread or to the most recent article.
"Even the signatures lines are handled by deleting them."???
Poor baby, you really _don't_ know how to use a proper newsreader, do
Sounds like that puts you squarely in the camp you so loudly denounce,
since you and the rest of your little junta want to saddle everyone with
top posting just to satisfy your bloated egos.
I already do.
Posted by Michael B on January 10, 2010, 12:30 am
If you get around to any roses-sniffing, here's a comment
that was in alt.home.repair that might be relevant to your
assertion that >90 % prefer bottom-posting.
Posted by John Fields on January 10, 2010, 12:52 pm
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 16:30:43 -0800 (PST), Michael B
Trying to be cute, huh?
One post out of millions hardly refutes my assertion, and that straw man
you're trying to pass off as top posting, isn't
What you've posted is a commentary on an article which you're quoting,
with the quotation (which you've failed to mark as a quotation, BTW)
following the comment.
That isn't top posting and is an acceptable construct.
However, failing to trim the irrelevant material following your quote
isn't, so I trimmed it for you just so you could see how much neater and
more readable your posts would look if you posted like they do in Rome.
Posted by John Fields on January 8, 2010, 2:00 pm
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 18:13:23 -0800 (PST), Michael B
Holding down a scroll key to get to the beginning of a top-posted series
of articles is at least 50% less efficacious than having the oldest
article on top since once you've read the stack and gotten to the bottom
you can type your article there instead of having to scroll back to the
top to do it.
You're right about one thing though, and that's that groups which orient
themselves as if they were email and either pretend or are stupid enough
to think that everyone knows what went before should probably stick to
the email format instead of burdening themselves with learning how to
Even Google Groups, that bastion for the clueless states, from:
When you click "Reply" under "show options" to follow up an existing
article, Google Groups includes the full article in quotes, with the
cursor at the top of the article. Tempting though it is to just start
typing your message, please STOP and do two things first.
Look at the quoted text and remove parts that are irrelevant.
Then, go to the BOTTOM of the article and start typing there.
Doing this makes it much easier for your readers to get through your
post. They'll have a reminder of the relevant text before your
comment, but won't have to re-read the entire article.
And if your reply appears on a site before the original article does,
they'll get the gist of what you're talking about."
So, you see, even though you pretend to fight valiantly, tooth and nail,
to defend your untenable position, in truth you're reduced yourself to
nothing more than a laughingstock low-grade troll since even the lowest
common denominator is apprised of proper usenetiquette, which you choose
to flaunt for the sole purpose of attracting unwarranted attention by
tilting at windmills and fomenting trouble.
As well as being a red herring, that statement is false since bottom and
in-line posting, when appropriate, is the posting style of choice for
anyone who reads from left to right and from top to bottom.
Just think about how you're reading this sentence; are you starting from
the eroteme and reading back back?
I don't think so, ergo: "as above, so below".
I'd say that applied more to you than to me since I'm merely defending
Google Groups' sage advice while (unless you're trying to troll, which
is more likely) you're trying to tear down a practice which serves
USENET in good stead and replace it with an onerous non-solution to a
Key phrase here is: "Don't fix it if it ain't broke." while what you
seem to be saying is: "If it works, break it so I can have my way."
Amazing what you creeps try to get away with, yes?