Epson V10 and V100

I wasn't lecturing--just stating why I like reading top posters instead
slogging through the same message a dozen times to get to each new reply and
why I think bottom posting "might" have been a reasonable standard way back
when. But, I think that standards can and should evolve.
--
Gary
Visit Lucy & Gary and do the jigsaw puzzle at
www.under-1-roof.com/PuzzlePage.html



"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Gary wrote:
The rule against top posting was developed back in the time when there

Don't lecture on netiquette using a losing argument in a top post.

Gary wrote:
I wasn't lecturing--just stating why I like reading top posters instead
slogging through the same message a dozen times to get to each new reply
and why I think bottom posting "might" have been a reasonable standard
way back when. But, I think that standards can and should evolve.

*plonk*

In article ,
"SF-East Bay'r" wrote:

I agree. I never could understand why people seem to prefer bottom posting.
Tom
"Gary" wrote in message
...
The rule against top posting was developed back in the time when there
might be days between the time an original post hit Usenet/Bitnet and
someone replied to it. The reader might like to see the o/p before they
read the reply. In this day and age when replies usually come quickly
after the o/p it makes no sense for readers to have to scroll through the
o/p multiple times to get down to the replies. In a top post the reader
can always scroll down to look at the o/p if he/she needs to refresh their
memory, otherwise it's "noted and move on." IMHO, the "rule" against top
posting is another case of "because that's the way we always did it!"

Gary
Visit Lucy & Gary and do the jigsaw puzzle at
www.under-1-roof.com/PuzzlePage.html


"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
snip
...
Please do not top post.




A little context editing helps a lot. I used to top post all the time
but find bottom posting actually works better. I left all this crap in
to prove the point. What if SF-East Bay had edited Gary down to a line
or two and then bottom posted his one line comment?

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]

On 25.09.2008 03:37, Alan Browne typed the following::
Gary wrote:
I wasn't lecturing--just stating why I like reading top posters
instead slogging through the same message a dozen times to get to each
new reply and why I think bottom posting "might" have been a
reasonable standard way back when. But, I think that standards can
and should evolve.

*plonk*

*plonk*

--
PerL

"Per Larsen" wrote in message
...
On 25.09.2008 03:37, Alan Browne typed the following::
Gary wrote:
I wasn't lecturing--just stating why I like reading top posters instead
slogging through the same message a dozen times to get to each new reply
and why I think bottom posting "might" have been a reasonable standard
way back when. But, I think that standards can and should evolve.

*plonk*

*plonk*

--
PerL

Sorry guys! I really didn't mean to **** anybody off!

On 26.09.2008 03:15, Gary typed the following::

"Per Larsen" wrote in message
...
On 25.09.2008 03:37, Alan Browne typed the following::
Gary wrote:
I wasn't lecturing--just stating why I like reading top posters
instead slogging through the same message a dozen times to get to
each new reply and why I think bottom posting "might" have been a
reasonable standard way back when. But, I think that standards can
and should evolve.

*plonk*

*plonk*

--
PerL

Sorry guys! I really didn't mean to **** anybody off!

Well, I didn't plonk you, only the guy that plonk-ed you.

--
PerL

You bottom posted leaving a bunch of crap in so that your post wasn't
visible without scrolling. So, I just didn't bother scrolling to read what
you had to say. If I have to scroll, I don't read it.

"Robert Peirce" wrote in message
]...
In article ,
"SF-East Bay'r" wrote:

I agree. I never could understand why people seem to prefer bottom
posting.
Tom
"Gary" wrote in message
...
The rule against top posting was developed back in the time when there
might be days between the time an original post hit Usenet/Bitnet and
someone replied to it. The reader might like to see the o/p before
they
read the reply. In this day and age when replies usually come quickly
after the o/p it makes no sense for readers to have to scroll through
the
o/p multiple times to get down to the replies. In a top post the
reader
can always scroll down to look at the o/p if he/she needs to refresh
their
memory, otherwise it's "noted and move on." IMHO, the "rule" against
top
posting is another case of "because that's the way we always did it!"

Gary
Visit Lucy & Gary and do the jigsaw puzzle at
www.under-1-roof.com/PuzzlePage.html


"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
snip
...
Please do not top post.




A little context editing helps a lot. I used to top post all the time
but find bottom posting actually works better. I left all this crap in
to prove the point. What if SF-East Bay had edited Gary down to a line
or two and then bottom posted his one line comment?

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]

Then you miss out on 75-90% of the posts in the newsgroups.
A lot of people post on the bottom so that you can see what they are
replying to.

I posted this on the top so you would bother to read it.

--
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
--
"Bogey Man" wrote in message
...
You bottom posted leaving a bunch of crap in so that your post wasn't
visible without scrolling. So, I just didn't bother scrolling to read what
you had to say. If I have to scroll, I don't read it.

"Robert Peirce" wrote in message
]...
In article ,
"SF-East Bay'r" wrote:

I agree. I never could understand why people seem to prefer bottom
posting.
Tom
"Gary" wrote in message
...
The rule against top posting was developed back in the time when there
might be days between the time an original post hit Usenet/Bitnet and
someone replied to it. The reader might like to see the o/p before
they
read the reply. In this day and age when replies usually come
quickly
after the o/p it makes no sense for readers to have to scroll through
the
o/p multiple times to get down to the replies. In a top post the
reader
can always scroll down to look at the o/p if he/she needs to refresh
their
memory, otherwise it's "noted and move on." IMHO, the "rule" against
top
posting is another case of "because that's the way we always did it!"

Gary
Visit Lucy & Gary and do the jigsaw puzzle at
www.under-1-roof.com/PuzzlePage.html


"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
snip
...
Please do not top post.




A little context editing helps a lot. I used to top post all the time
but find bottom posting actually works better. I left all this crap in
to prove the point. What if SF-East Bay had edited Gary down to a line
or two and then bottom posted his one line comment?

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]