PCs to change radically in 2004! (The Enquirer)

The "top post" gurus are usually quick to point out that they are using
proper netiquette. If pressed, they will also cite protocol that suggests
smipping test and posting within the message to retain relevence. All good
points, but most only use one point - TOP POST. When this is done without
the other techniques, you generally have to scroll through several pages of
posts to get to the bottom, where someone will say "I agree".

The convention of bottom posting is archaic and established in the early
days of usenet, when modems were slow (300 baud) and there were far fewer
messages than there are now. With faster modems, you can view a thread from
top to bottom and follow the conversation with more ease with top posting.

Everyone needs to re-evaluate the "Bottom Post" era and get with the times.

DDDD

"David Maynard" wrote in message
...
Seeker wrote:
There still is no "correct" way to post... Just the "suggested" way.

Feel free to offer any authoritative source that 'suggests' the other way.


"David Maynard" wrote in message
...

0_Qed wrote:

Debug wrote:


Is that so?


Yea, verily!

AG Ashcroft, on numerous occasions, has implicitely so declared.

All worship 'The Ashcroft' ...

chortguffaw
Qed

Actually, there's nothing mysterious about it. It's simply a matter of
proper netiquette.

http://www.alt-html.org/index.html#usenet -- Brucie's alt.html General
Information
http://www.html-faq.com/faq.php?clue=topposting -- alt.html FAQ
reference
on posting methods
http://fmf.fwn.rug.nl/~anton/topposting.html -- Why is Bottom-posting
better than Top-posting
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html -- Jukka Korpela
presents
Tobias Brox's Bottom vs. top posting and quotation style on Usenet
http://www.xs4all.nl/~wijnands/nnq/nquote.html --
news.newusers.questions

FAQ

http://members.home.net/krobb7/quoting.html -- Ken's Quoting Guide

(_broken

link_)
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html -- Netmeister: "How do
I
quote correctly in Usenet"
http://www.i-hate-computers.demon.co.uk/ -- "How not to look like an
idiot", What do you mean "my reply is upside-down"?
http://www.windfalls.net/ukrm/postinghelp.html -- "Suggestions on how to

post"

http://www.topfloor.com/pr/communities/ch3.htm -- TopFloor Publishing:
Online communities - Participating effectively
http://fmf.fwn.rug.nl/~anton/topposting.html -- Anton Smit: "Why is
Bottom-posting better than Top-posting
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/g.mccaugha...ks/uquote.html --

G.McCaughan:

The advantages of Usenet's quoting conventions
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting.html -- Richard
Kettlewell: Quoting Style



http://www.estreetjournal.com/cgi-lo...net/Etiquette/

-- Netiquette links
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1/ -- "rules" for

posting

to usenet
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/docproject/zen/zen-1.0_6.html -- zen and the
art
of the internet (usenet section)

DDD wrote:
The "top post" gurus are usually quick to point out that they are using
proper netiquette.

People can, of course, 'say' anything but I have yet to see any
authoritative source that 'suggests' top posting is "proper netiquette."

If pressed, they will also cite protocol that suggests
smipping test and posting within the message to retain relevence.

Correct.

All good
points, but most only use one point - TOP POST. When this is done without
the other techniques, you generally have to scroll through several pages of
posts to get to the bottom, where someone will say "I agree".

You apparently have your 'tops and bottoms' mixed up.

The convention of bottom posting is archaic

That is an unsubstantiated assertion.

and established in the early
days of usenet, when modems were slow (300 baud) and there were far fewer
messages than there are now.

Modem speed has nothing to do with the logic flow of a message.

With faster modems, you can view a thread from
top to bottom and follow the conversation with more ease with top posting.

That is exactly backwards.

Everyone needs to re-evaluate the "Bottom Post" era and get with the times.

What I would suggest is that you actually read the articles about top vs
bottom posting and see what the reasoning is.


DDDD

"David Maynard" wrote in message
...

Seeker wrote:

There still is no "correct" way to post... Just the "suggested" way.

Feel free to offer any authoritative source that 'suggests' the other way.

David,

I really didn't expect to change your opinion about it at all, but I am
convinced that the Bottom Post method encourages rude habits. You are
correct in your statement that I got my Top and Bottom post quotes mixed up.
I screwed up and it wasn't the first nor will it be the last time. Sorry.

My main complaint about Bottom Posters is one that you glossed over by
pointing out my error. Bottom posters always will state that you should
snip and post within a message, such as you did. Your reply was excellent
in its placement. The problem is that very few, if any, do that
consistently. I routinely have to scroll down through pages and pages of
repeat text to get to the Bottom Poster's reply.

If I only log on to a newsgroup a couple of times a day, I can read the
original message in a thread and then the reply will be readily visible if
at the top. The next reply will be the same - if at the top. In practice,
it doesn't work that way and if it doesn't work that way, change it. That
is my opinion and that is why I say it is archaic. OPINION - that's what
makes the world go around.

DDD

"David Maynard" wrote in message
...
DDD wrote:
The "top post" gurus are usually quick to point out that they are using
proper netiquette.

People can, of course, 'say' anything but I have yet to see any
authoritative source that 'suggests' top posting is "proper netiquette."

If pressed, they will also cite protocol that suggests
smipping test and posting within the message to retain relevence.

Correct.

All good
points, but most only use one point - TOP POST. When this is done
without
the other techniques, you generally have to scroll through several pages
of
posts to get to the bottom, where someone will say "I agree".

You apparently have your 'tops and bottoms' mixed up.

The convention of bottom posting is archaic

That is an unsubstantiated assertion.

and established in the early
days of usenet, when modems were slow (300 baud) and there were far
fewer
messages than there are now.

Modem speed has nothing to do with the logic flow of a message.

With faster modems, you can view a thread from
top to bottom and follow the conversation with more ease with top
posting.

That is exactly backwards.

Everyone needs to re-evaluate the "Bottom Post" era and get with the
times.

What I would suggest is that you actually read the articles about top vs
bottom posting and see what the reasoning is.


DDDD

"David Maynard" wrote in message
...

Seeker wrote:

There still is no "correct" way to post... Just the "suggested" way.

Feel free to offer any authoritative source that 'suggests' the other
way.

DDDD wrote:
David,

I really didn't expect to change your opinion about it at all, but I am
convinced that the Bottom Post method encourages rude habits.

There is no doubt about there being 'rude' bottom posters but I don't think
that has anything to do with the position of the post. They're lazy
snippers, which means you have to scroll through a lot of old text to find
the reply. Top posters are just as, if not more, lazy (since most top
posters I've seen treat the quoted text as if it doesn't exist so there's
often an archive of the last 10 years in it), which means I have to sift
through a jumbled pile of text to figure out what they're talking about.

Of course, both 'sides' over state the 'problem'. I mean, unless you have a
broken finger then just how much does it really 'hurt' to scroll? Ouch, ew.
Oh, the pain, the pain.... Doesn't even 'hurt' as much as snipping.

I've probably scrolled as much in just this composition window as you did
during the entire newsgroup read. And I don't use the wheel!

But I can usually figure out a top post reply without reading all the
preceding text too.

You are
correct in your statement that I got my Top and Bottom post quotes mixed up.
I screwed up and it wasn't the first nor will it be the last time. Sorry.

My main complaint about Bottom Posters is one that you glossed over by
pointing out my error.

I wasn't trying to gloss over it but I didn't want to 'assume' what you meant.

Bottom posters always will state that you should
snip and post within a message, such as you did. Your reply was excellent
in its placement. The problem is that very few, if any, do that
consistently. I routinely have to scroll down through pages and pages of
repeat text to get to the Bottom Poster's reply.

I know that's a problem but I don't think the solution to one problem is
the creation of another one.

For those who's entire reply is something like "oh, ok" then perhaps a top
post, which we can hope is the end of the thing, isn't so much of a problem
(at least there's little to figure out since there's little said) but, for
the most part and when there is actual conversation, bottom posting
preserves the logic flow and makes more sense.

Frankly, I don't have my hair on fire about either one and generally don't
care (much), although sifting through jumbled text to figure out who is
talking about what can get irritating and there have been times I simply
ignored a message because of it, but since folks were jumping up and down
and sticking their tongues out at each other I though it would be
appropriate to post some links that explain it.


If I only log on to a newsgroup a couple of times a day, I can read the
original message in a thread and then the reply will be readily visible if
at the top. The next reply will be the same - if at the top. In practice,
it doesn't work that way and if it doesn't work that way, change it.

Yes, well, that may be all well and good for your particular 'style' but
that doesn't mean everyone else operates the same way and, frankly, the
example you give more closely fits the 'slow modem' and few messages
'archaic' characterization you made earlier. The newsgroups I participate
in, which is more than one, have thousands of messages so my reader is set
to only show new ones. That means I do not have the previous message
immediately available to 'look at' nor am I generally reading threads one
message after the other, hopping from 'top of the post to top of the post'
in one fell swoop. I often do conversations, who's messages are necessarily
'old' after each post since the other party hasn't replied yet, and what
took place 'yesterday' is not necessarily foremost in my mind for any
particular message. Put simply, what I have from the conversation, and the
flow of logic, is what's in the message I'm reading.

And if top posters do not intend for their reply to make logical sense with
respect to the quoted text then why are they quoting it in the first place?
(which is not a request to drop the quote because even an illogically
organized context is better than none)


That
is my opinion and that is why I say it is archaic. OPINION - that's what
makes the world go around.

Opinions are great when they're based on something that makes sense but I
don't think there's anything 'archaic' about good logic flow.

I did, however, enjoy the rational exchange of opinions.


DDD

"David Maynard" wrote in message
...

DDD wrote:

The "top post" gurus are usually quick to point out that they are using
proper netiquette.

People can, of course, 'say' anything but I have yet to see any
authoritative source that 'suggests' top posting is "proper netiquette."


If pressed, they will also cite protocol that suggests
smipping test and posting within the message to retain relevence.

Correct.


All good
points, but most only use one point - TOP POST. When this is done

without

the other techniques, you generally have to scroll through several pages

of

posts to get to the bottom, where someone will say "I agree".

You apparently have your 'tops and bottoms' mixed up.


The convention of bottom posting is archaic

That is an unsubstantiated assertion.


and established in the early
days of usenet, when modems were slow (300 baud) and there were far

fewer

messages than there are now.

Modem speed has nothing to do with the logic flow of a message.


With faster modems, you can view a thread from
top to bottom and follow the conversation with more ease with top

posting.

That is exactly backwards.


Everyone needs to re-evaluate the "Bottom Post" era and get with the

times.

What I would suggest is that you actually read the articles about top vs
bottom posting and see what the reasoning is.

And neither is the AGP CI (Advanced Graphics Peripheral Card Input) It has
always been a pci slot just an advanced slot. They are already in the pipes
with AMD to partner up with nVidia Gigabyte and Intel Rival VIA and they are
currently already working on a 128 BIT CPU chipset AGP (Advanced Graphics
Peripheral Card Input) AGPCI multi X4Basic Input Output System . Microsoft
is Already finishing what should be a Kick Ass operating system to suit this
is the fastest delivery of a never before seen architecture to ever come
out of this industry and no one even knew MS were working on a 128 Bit
Capable Windows OS we thought the revolution was slowing down but it has
not even rolled a single turn.
Looks like moores law is actually taking off by mid to end 2007 you will
be in control of processors well capable of 13 to 15 GHz CPU speed well
ahead of today's standards/late last year 2003 there was a 10 GHZ (yeah
right) Intel chip rumoured that is not happening since Intel did not Expect
AMD to release a 64 bit single chip version XP64 of the Opteron this has set
intel back some what I do not think PCI Express will Be around for much
longer considering people are a bit mixed up about their technologies and i
can not blame them with all the crossover sales is it PCIXpress or PCI
Express either way they (INTEL) chop and change they have now released To
many processor chipset configurations in the last 3 years that's just for DT
PC's not including the thin client variants. is this Already happening or
mere speculation we will have to see. "Of course it is "
"SPRITE1001" wrote in message
...
Roadmaps show that AMD will be keeping the AGP slot for the next round of
chipsets. Intel looks to be completly ditching it in favor of PCI express.
The
PCI slot isnt the one disapearing.

I agree

see he told you so
"DDD" wrote in message
news:421fe$403b3fa5$45234585$17698@allthenewsgroup s.com...
The "top post" gurus are usually quick to point out that they are using
proper netiquette. If pressed, they will also cite protocol that suggests
smipping test and posting within the message to retain relevence. All
good
points, but most only use one point - TOP POST. When this is done without
the other techniques, you generally have to scroll through several pages
of
posts to get to the bottom, where someone will say "I agree".

The convention of bottom posting is archaic and established in the early
days of usenet, when modems were slow (300 baud) and there were far fewer
messages than there are now. With faster modems, you can view a thread
from
top to bottom and follow the conversation with more ease with top posting.

Everyone needs to re-evaluate the "Bottom Post" era and get with the
times.

DDDD

"David Maynard" wrote in message
...
Seeker wrote:
There still is no "correct" way to post... Just the "suggested" way.

Feel free to offer any authoritative source that 'suggests' the other
way.


"David Maynard" wrote in message
...

0_Qed wrote:

Debug wrote:


Is that so?


Yea, verily!

AG Ashcroft, on numerous occasions, has implicitely so declared.

All worship 'The Ashcroft' ...

chortguffaw
Qed

Actually, there's nothing mysterious about it. It's simply a matter of
proper netiquette.

http://www.alt-html.org/index.html#usenet -- Brucie's alt.html General
Information
http://www.html-faq.com/faq.php?clue=topposting -- alt.html FAQ
reference
on posting methods
http://fmf.fwn.rug.nl/~anton/topposting.html -- Why is Bottom-posting
better than Top-posting
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html -- Jukka Korpela
presents
Tobias Brox's Bottom vs. top posting and quotation style on Usenet
http://www.xs4all.nl/~wijnands/nnq/nquote.html --
news.newusers.questions

FAQ

http://members.home.net/krobb7/quoting.html -- Ken's Quoting Guide

(_broken

link_)
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html -- Netmeister: "How
do
I
quote correctly in Usenet"
http://www.i-hate-computers.demon.co.uk/ -- "How not to look like an
idiot", What do you mean "my reply is upside-down"?
http://www.windfalls.net/ukrm/postinghelp.html -- "Suggestions on how
to

post"

http://www.topfloor.com/pr/communities/ch3.htm -- TopFloor Publishing:
Online communities - Participating effectively
http://fmf.fwn.rug.nl/~anton/topposting.html -- Anton Smit: "Why is
Bottom-posting better than Top-posting
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/g.mccaugha...ks/uquote.html --

G.McCaughan:

The advantages of Usenet's quoting conventions
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting.html -- Richard
Kettlewell: Quoting Style




http://www.estreetjournal.com/cgi-lo...net/Etiquette/

-- Netiquette links
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1/ -- "rules" for

posting

to usenet
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/docproject/zen/zen-1.0_6.html -- zen and the
art
of the internet (usenet section)

"David Maynard" wrote in message
...
DDDD wrote:
.

Snip a lot

I did, however, enjoy the rational exchange of opinions.



Snip a lot more

David

I agree that the exchange was rational, which is pretty unusual when
discussing Top vs Bottom posting, and I enjoyed it. You will notice that I
am Bottom posting, which I do at times. I top post, bottom post and move
around as the message dictates. Thanks for the discussion.

DDDD

When replying to emails in outlook etc, what do most people do? It's
not bottom posting. Why do it on the newsgroup? And why do people
quote 100's of lines of text only to say "I agree" or something at the
bottom. It's annoying and they should be shot :-p

"I agree"




Alex wrote:
When replying to emails in outlook etc, what do most people do? It's
not bottom posting. Why do it on the newsgroup? And why do people
quote 100's of lines of text only to say "I agree" or something at the
bottom. It's annoying and they should be shot :-p

LOL!

--

Thomas Geery
Network+ certified

ftp://geerynet.d2g.com
ftp://68.98.180.8 Abit Mirror ----- Cable modem IP
This IP is dynamic so it *could* change!...
over 120,000 FTP users served!
^^^^^^^




"Leon Rowell" wrote in message
...
"I agree"




Alex wrote:
When replying to emails in outlook etc, what do most people do? It's
not bottom posting. Why do it on the newsgroup? And why do people
quote 100's of lines of text only to say "I agree" or something at the
bottom. It's annoying and they should be shot :-p