Bottom Posting - Mozilla

This is a discussion on Bottom Posting - Mozilla ; Tony Earnshaw wrote: > hb wrote, on 28. feb 2007 05:04: > >>> Would everyone please follow convention and use top-posting protocol. >>> By using top-posting protocol, thread flow is much easier to read. > > [...] > >> Press ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 177

Thread: Bottom Posting

  1. Re: Bottom Posting

    Tony Earnshaw wrote:

    > hb wrote, on 28. feb 2007 05:04:
    >
    >>> Would everyone please follow convention and use top-posting protocol.
    >>> By using top-posting protocol, thread flow is much easier to read.

    >
    > [...]
    >
    >> Press to quickly scroll to the bottom. Replies can be
    >> automatically bottom-posted by a simple setting.

    >


    >
    > Personally I find the "convention of the group" decidedly uncultivated
    > when insisting on people reading reams and reams of stuff irrelevant to
    > the point being made.


    Tonni

    I frankly don't give a damn what your views on this topic are. The rule in
    USENET groups has always been 'when in Rome do as the Romans do'. The
    owners of this newsgroup have *decreed* (i.e. users have no choice) that
    bottom-posting is the way to go! Judicial editing out of non-relevant
    stuff in what is quoted appears not to be a problem - this in fact makes
    reading of posts even easier.

    Rob.

  2. Re: Bottom Posting

    Old Gringo wrote:

    > On Or About Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:55:50 -0500, Without Any Hesitation Or
    > Thinking Twice, Frank Parmelee Stumbled Over To The Keyboard And wrote The
    > Following In The mozilla.support.firefox News Group:
    >
    >> Would everyone please follow convention and use top-posting protocol. By
    >> using top-posting protocol, thread flow is much easier to read.

    >
    > ROTFLMAO


    And let us not forget: http://blinkynet.net/comp/toppost.html


    --
    Blinky RLU 297263
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html


  3. Re: Bottom Posting

    Tony Earnshaw wrote:
    > hb wrote, on 28. feb 2007 05:04:
    >
    >>> Would everyone please follow convention and use top-posting protocol.
    >>> By using top-posting protocol, thread flow is much easier to read.

    >
    > [...]
    >
    >> Press to quickly scroll to the bottom. Replies can be
    >> automatically bottom-posted by a simple setting.

    >
    >
    > Actually, though a nominal bottom-poster I find this more annoying than
    > pure top posting. At the end of a long thread, havine scrolled through
    > the lot of it, one gets a load of blurb pertaining to bits one can't find.
    >
    > The best is replying to points that are made under those points and
    > scrapping the rest, as is the habit on cultivated MLs.
    >
    >> Granted, it's not perfect, and there may be occasional line-wrapping
    >> problems when threads are lengthy, but a intelligibility comparison
    >> between groups will quickly reveal the wisdom bottom-posting.
    >> For example, compare threads here and similar discussion in ...
    >> news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsof...dowsXP.general
    >>
    >> In any case, one should stick with the convention of the group, and be
    >> consistent in the mode that is used.

    >
    > Personally I find the "convention of the group" decidedly uncultivated
    > when insisting on people reading reams and reams of stuff irrelevant to
    > the point being made.
    >
    > --Tonni
    >


    No one makes you read any of these messages. No one makes you come to
    this newsgroup. And whether or not you find the group or any of the
    posters, 'cultivated' is decidedly irrelevant to me, and, I am sure, to
    most other posters here.

    Those of us who have been here a while are here to help others, and to
    seek help ourselves at times, and after long experience, we find that
    bottom posting best facilitates that exchange of information,
    'cultivated' or not.


    --
    Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

  4. Re: Bottom Posting

    Frank Parmelee wrote:

    > Would everyone please follow convention and use top-posting protocol. By
    > using top-posting protocol, thread flow is much easier to read.
    >


    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
    Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
    A: Top-posting.
    Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
    -----------------------------------------------------------------

    I admit the above is not original and I borrowed it from someone's sig a few
    years ago.

    I've been using Usenet for many years - my first experience of a newsreader
    was Mozilla 1.2N - and bottom-posting has been the convention for all that
    time.

    Also, snipping unrelated text has also been a convention except among a few
    groups - particularly Mozilla - where they needed to keep all information
    within a single message. One early newsreader I used would not allow a
    message to be posted when the new message was shorter than the quoted text.

    --
    Graham P Davis
    Bracknell, Berks., UK
    Send e-mails to "newsman" as mails to "newsboy" are ignored.

  5. Re: Bottom Posting

    Graham P Davis wrote:
    >
    > Also, snipping unrelated text has also been a convention except among a few
    > groups - particularly Mozilla - where they needed to keep all information
    > within a single message. One early newsreader I used would not allow a
    > message to be posted when the new message was shorter than the quoted text.
    >

    ... and it's the lack of sensible snipping in most cases that can make
    bottom posted text, however logical, a pain to read because of the need
    to scroll through pages of old information to find the one new line of
    text at the bottom. So, you could say that many zealous (some might say
    holier than thou) bottom-posters drive people to top posting because of
    their selfish unwillingness to snip.

    --
    Wilf

  6. Re: Bottom Posting

    On Or About Wed, 28 Feb 2007 00:00:07 -0800, Without Any Hesitation
    Or Thinking Twice, Blinky the Shark Stumbled Over To The Keyboard And
    wrote The Following In The mozilla.support.firefox News Group:

    > Old Gringo wrote:
    >
    >> On Or About Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:55:50 -0500, Without Any Hesitation Or
    >> Thinking Twice, Frank Parmelee Stumbled Over To The Keyboard And wrote The
    >> Following In The mozilla.support.firefox News Group:
    >>
    >>> Would everyone please follow convention and use top-posting protocol. By
    >>> using top-posting protocol, thread flow is much easier to read.

    >>
    >> ROTFLMAO

    >
    > And let us not forget: http://blinkynet.net/comp/toppost.html


    That's a good one, I like that.
    --
    Just West Of Nowhere
    Enjoy Life And Live It To Its Fullest
    http://.www.NuBoy-Industries.Com
    2/28/2007 6:18:21 AM CST

  7. Re: Bottom Posting

    >By using top-posting protocol, thread flow is much easier to read.

    millions of people don't get it. they must obey the rules that to be made by unknown

    Regards...
    ___________________________________________

    >Writer .. : Frank Parmelee
    >Date .... : 28.02.2007 00:55:50
    >Reply ... : news:BLadnS4nd8RkK3nYnZ2dnUVZ_tGlnZ2d@mozilla.org
    >
    > Would everyone please follow convention and use top-posting protocol. By using
    > top-posting protocol, thread flow is much easier to read.




  8. Re: Bottom Posting

    "Frank Parmelee" wrote in
    news:NNadnc-XTuJsX3nYnZ2dnUVZ_s6onZ2d@mozilla.org:

    > In any other newsgroup but this one, top posting is convention
    > or the norm making for smoother [easier reading] thread flow.


    That's simply not true, Frank. In all 38 of the groups that I
    participate, bottom posting is the norm.

    --
    }:-) Christopher Jahn
    {:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
    http://camera-ephemera.blogspot.com/
    Shoes for industry!

  9. Re: Bottom Posting

    Rob wrote:
    >> Personally I find the "convention of the group" decidedly
    >> uncultivated when insisting on people reading reams and reams of
    >> stuff irrelevant to the point being made.

    > Tonni
    >
    > I frankly don't give a damn what your views on this topic are.

    If that were true you wouldn't have bothered to respond!
    > The rule in USENET groups has always been 'when in Rome do as the
    > Romans do'.

    Actually that's just a cliche, not a rule. Besides, this ain't Rome! :-)
    > The owners of this newsgroup have *decreed* (i.e. users have no
    > choice) that bottom-posting is the way to go!

    Actually this is false. People top post here all the time. Oh they bitch
    but then again they often bitch about lots of things.
    > Judicial editing out of non-relevant stuff in what is quoted appears
    > not to be a problem - this in fact makes
    > reading of posts even easier.

    Great! Let's all start doing it!
    --
    Andrew DeFaria
    The secret of the universe is @*&^^^ NO CARRIER


  10. Re: Bottom Posting

    On 28.02.2007 00:01, Tony Earnshaw wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > hb wrote, on 28. feb 2007 05:04:
    >
    >>> Would everyone please follow convention and use top-posting protocol.
    >>> By using top-posting protocol, thread flow is much easier to read.

    >
    > [...]
    >
    >> Press to quickly scroll to the bottom. Replies can be
    >> automatically bottom-posted by a simple setting.


    Yes, that's the way it is on secnews because we advocate no-snipping.
    Here, it's a bit different. See Tonni's quote just below.

    >
    > Actually, though a nominal bottom-poster I find this more annoying than
    > pure top posting. At the end of a long thread, havine scrolled through
    > the lot of it, one gets a load of blurb pertaining to bits one can't find.
    >
    > The best is replying to points that are made under those points and
    > scrapping the rest, as is the habit on cultivated MLs.


    Well, that's the suggested method here, interspersed reply and snip the
    rest.


    > Personally I find the "convention of the group" decidedly uncultivated
    > when insisting on people reading reams and reams of stuff irrelevant to
    > the point being made.


    If the guidelines/etiquette is followed that won't happen. And that IS
    the convention here.


    > --Tonni
    >



    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

  11. Re: Bottom Posting

    On 28.02.2007 07:57, Andrew DeFaria wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > Great! Let's all start doing it!


    What, start posting courteously and considerate of others ?? Yah, sounds
    good to me. When do we start?

    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

  12. Re: Bottom Posting

    Jay Garcia wrote:
    > On 28.02.2007 07:57, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
    >> Great! Let's all start doing it!

    > What, start posting courteously and considerate of others ?? Yah,
    > sounds good to me. When do we start?

    No, silly, interspersed reply and snip the rest. Can't you read and
    follow simple discussions?
    --
    Andrew DeFaria
    Buy a Pentium 586/90 so you can reboot faster.


  13. Re: Bottom Posting

    Frank Parmelee wrote:
    > Would everyone please follow convention and use top-posting protocol. By
    > using top-posting protocol, thread flow is much easier to read.


    I have no doubt that this reply will fall on deaf ears, but as the
    moderator for a Big8 Usenet group, I run into this question
    semi-frequently. Here is my standard response.

    Pay particular attention to the fact RFC 1855 SPECIFICALLY lists
    bottom-posting as the "convention" to use, despite your assertion to the
    contrary.


    If you've read the "Admin" posts about formatting text, you've
    undoubtedly seen the part where it says:

    2) Any quoted material must be ABOVE the new text, with your
    comments (ie. the new text appearing AFTER the quoted text.
    Appropriately interspacing the quoted text with your comments
    is also allowable. Note that this is not just something we as
    the moderators are making up, but rather is a real internet
    standard, defined in RFC 1855, section 3.1.1, item 10 (viewable
    at http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/)).


    I've had people over the years ask "why?", especially in light of the
    fact that some programs, most notably Microsoft Outlook and Outlook
    Express "want" you to do just the opposite. Being that this IS a
    reasonable question, I will endeavor to go into that answer from my
    point of view.

    First of all, let it be known that I use Outlook Express myself, so I'm
    not asking anyone to do something I don't do myself....

    But to the real answer:
    Quite honestly, in email 1:1 (ie, between just you and 1 other person),
    it's totally irrelevant what method is used. Even in group discussions,
    it wouldn't be an issue if one method or the other was used exclusively.
    The problem occurs when both methods are used as it inevitably leads to
    mis-attribution of quoted text (eg. "I didn't say that, JimBob said
    that").
    It is in fact, the #1 cause of mis-attribution.

    So to avoid these problems, one method or the other must be picked and
    the only question is "which one?". There are 2 main reasons for us
    arbitrarily picking (if we have reasons, is it arbitrary?) for picking
    "bottom post" over "top post":

    1) Item #4 of the posting guidelines says:
    "All excess quoted material removed. At a minimum, this should
    include the previous person's signature block. A good rule of
    thumb is that your comments should have at least, and preferably
    more, lines than you quoted."
    There are a couple of reasons for this rule in and of itself - reduction
    in bandwidth, less likelihood of exceeding INBOX quotas, and reduced
    disk space requirements for the archives (yes, every message is saved in
    the archives). As a general rule, you should have more text written by
    you than you have quoted above - if you don't, you should evaluate what
    it is that you have to say.

    By having to scroll past the quoted text ("bottom post"), the user
    is given an greater opportunity to delete that un-needed portions of
    quoted text. In fact, if you look at the posts where "top post" is
    used, it is virtually unheard of for them to remove any quoted text at
    all. This is a *bad thing*.


    2) "Bottom post" allows for a reply on a point-by-point basis; this is
    impossible with "top post". As we know, some posts can be relatively
    long and make multiple points (or ask multiple questions). It is
    observed that unless you do a point-by-point, some of the points (or
    questions) are completely ignored.



    Does this help?



    --

    + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes
    chris@txbarnes.com (also MSN IM) Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes

  14. Re: Bottom Posting

    Blinky the Shark wrote:
    > And let us not forget: http://blinkynet.net/comp/toppost.html



    ROTFLMAO! That is the best response of all time.




    --

    + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes
    chris@txbarnes.com (also MSN IM) Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes

  15. Re: Bottom Posting

    Frank Parmelee wrote:
    > Would everyone please follow convention and use top-posting protocol. By
    > using top-posting protocol, thread flow is much easier to read.
    >


    Believe it or not I agree with you.
    But the powers that be have from tablets on high. given an official
    edict that there shall be no top post in any of the Mozilla Groups.

    Though your reasoning is actually correct. there are those here that
    would pummel you in the around for even talking such heresy. A majority
    of people here were here when the actual internet started with 300 baud
    modem. And Bottom post became a defacto standard. And after enough
    people did it that way. It became an official Standard.

    So we must "if Rome we must do as the Romans do".

    We're not suppose to Rock the Boat or go against convention.

    So by your two line sentence you have at once started once again an age
    old Flame war.

    Be prepared to receive tons of replies how dumb you are , and other
    stuff. The folks can't see the logic of it even if they were to actually
    view it That way. So my apologies for the onslaught. :-(

    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Phillip M. Jones, CET http://www.vpea.org
    If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailtojones@kimbanet.com
    http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
    G4-500, OSX.3.9 17" PowerBook G4-1.67 Gb, OSX.4.8
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

  16. Re: Bottom Posting

    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    > Frank Parmelee wrote:
    >> In any other newsgroup but this one, top posting is convention or the
    >> norm

    >
    > in every group I've been in its bottom posting.
    >
    >> making for smoother [easier reading] thread flow. I find it very
    >> difficult to sift through this newsgroup for information because of
    >> the insistence on bottom posting.

    >
    > my heart bleeds for you
    >
    >> I just thought you might want to
    >> join the real world, that's all.

    >
    > the real world within these newsgroups is bottom or interspersion posting.


    go read the following groups in the real world.

    msnews:
    microsoft.public.mac.office.word
    microsoft.public.mac.office.excel
    microsoft.public.mac.office.powerpoint

    And The PC equivalents.

    You find the major of all the post in those groups (which are small
    sample) are top post or intersperse.

    If anyone wishes to debate whether MicroSoft is or is not the 900 pound
    Gorilla I'm afraid they will lose that argument

    Mozilla/SM/FF/TB are but just drops in the bucket. And we had better
    hitch on to the band wagon if we don't won't to be fond faint memory.

    There rules we follow now were defined by a bunch of College and armed
    service geek types back in the 60's 70's. We have turned to another
    century. and we need to be modern and up to date. Yet we are being
    forced to use a posting type that devised by a bunch 50/60 year old
    academics in the 60's.
    >



    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Phillip M. Jones, CET http://www.vpea.org
    If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailtojones@kimbanet.com
    http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
    G4-500, OSX.3.9 17" PowerBook G4-1.67 Gb, OSX.4.8
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

  17. Re: Bottom Posting

    Ron Hunter wrote:
    > Frank Parmelee wrote:
    >> Would everyone please follow convention and use top-posting protocol.
    >> By using top-posting protocol, thread flow is much easier to read.
    >>

    > Do you normally read from bottom up? I disagree about top posting being
    > easier to read.
    > In any case, the convention in THIS group is bottom posting, and going
    > against the convention won't make you popular.
    >
    >

    In case of a support group top posting is more logical.
    The question should be in the subject line and the first post would be
    to elaborate on the question the subject line.

    Then the reply on top so that you only have to read that reply. You
    don't waste time scrolling or even mouse clicking to the bottom. If you
    have something to say put your post above the previous reply and move on.

    I spend at least 30-40% less time reading "Support" groups" that top
    post than bottom posting.

    But this is not an argument that going to be won. Everyone's opinion is
    set in concrete. And the power That be have it written it in stone. And
    don't wish to even hear opposing arguments. So I bottom post not because
    I like it, or even because I think its better (actually its worse
    logically). But because I've been told to do.

    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Phillip M. Jones, CET http://www.vpea.org
    If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailtojones@kimbanet.com
    http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
    G4-500, OSX.3.9 17" PowerBook G4-1.67 Gb, OSX.4.8
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

  18. Re: Bottom Posting

    "Frank Parmelee" writes:

    > In any other newsgroup but this one, top posting is convention or the norm
    > making for smoother [easier reading] thread flow. I find it very difficult
    > to sift through this newsgroup for information because of the insistence on
    > bottom posting.


    Bottom posting is the norm.

    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html

    --
    Carl

  19. Re: Bottom Posting

    On 28/02/2007 16:45, Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T decided to send this crud:
    > Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >> Frank Parmelee wrote:
    >>> In any other newsgroup but this one, top posting is convention or the
    >>> norm

    >>
    >> in every group I've been in its bottom posting.
    >>
    >>> making for smoother [easier reading] thread flow. I find it very
    >>> difficult to sift through this newsgroup for information because of
    >>> the insistence on bottom posting.

    >>
    >> my heart bleeds for you
    >>
    >>> I just thought you might want to
    >>> join the real world, that's all.

    >>
    >> the real world within these newsgroups is bottom or interspersion
    >> posting.

    >
    > go read the following groups in the real world.
    >
    > msnews:
    > microsoft.public.mac.office.word
    > microsoft.public.mac.office.excel
    > microsoft.public.mac.office.powerpoint
    >
    > And The PC equivalents.
    >
    > You find the major of all the post in those groups (which are small
    > sample) are top post or intersperse.
    >
    > If anyone wishes to debate whether MicroSoft is or is not the 900 pound
    > Gorilla I'm afraid they will lose that argument
    >
    > Mozilla/SM/FF/TB are but just drops in the bucket. And we had better
    > hitch on to the band wagon if we don't won't to be fond faint memory.
    >
    > There rules we follow now were defined by a bunch of College and armed
    > service geek types back in the 60's 70's. We have turned to another
    > century. and we need to be modern and up to date. Yet we are being
    > forced to use a posting type that devised by a bunch 50/60 year old
    > academics in the 60's.
    >>

    >
    >


    Should I laugh or cry?

    In terms of "netiquette" I would rather ban microsoft newsgroups
    altogether then follow them because they are a "900 lb gorilla" and
    everyone else on the net is a "drop in a bucket".

    Anyone who uses that argument to suggest we all follow them needs to be
    publicly flogged!

  20. Re: Bottom Posting

    On 28/02/2007 08:49, Wilf decided to send this crud:
    > So, you could say that many zealous (some might say
    > holier than thou) bottom-posters drive people to top posting because of
    > their selfish unwillingness to snip.


    Personally, if I was replying to a post, and had to go through 120 pages
    of text just to start writing what I was going to... I would be more
    understanding of the NEED to snip.

    By just reading the original post, and then top posting, there is an
    inherent tendency to not BOTHER snipping at all.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast