Unnerving braking experiences; sudden braking increase.

ddog wrote:

Are you playing teacher by an unknown web source as your authority?
Not to say anything is right or wrong, because except for math,
everything is variable.

Well, I find top posting refreshing personally. It's an almost certain
sign that the poster has a poor grasp of nettiquette and additionally
probably has nothing useful to impart. It certainly speeds up the
decision process of whether to killfile someone or not.

--
Dane Buson -
"Besides, I think [Slackware] sounds better than 'Microsoft,' don't you?"
(By Patrick Volkerding)

On Jan 26, 12:59 pm, Dane Buson wrote:
ddog wrote:
I find top posting refreshing personally.

I do too. If only one simple line pinpointing one of many ideas, then
bottom posting is an appropriate filter.
If there is only one main idea scattered throughout, and only one main
reply to that idea;
then why add minutia to a clear response? Because a web link said so?
lol

Top posting always has reference below IF needed; instead of wasting
100% of time of 100% of readers.
Not everyone should pay for remedial readers or unclear individuals
which we all are at times (but hopefully not near 100%).

If you haven't caught on yet, 'rules' and 'procedures' for those who
can't differentiate and
make decisions on their own OR critical safety/quality issues (which
this is not).
If it were CRITICAL, it would be in photographic instructions with as
little verbage as required.

As well, if someone picks apart line by line replies, then they have
nothing better to do
than to wrap themselves in needless details of typos, usually.
So I like it for completely opposite reasons you do, to differentiate
who has some worthwhile thoughts,
and who is saying 'look at me' because I formatted it to a web site
rules which are totally illogical under all conditions.

The other valid format for bottom posting would be responding to
several different authors or several specific ideas.

Adults make and follow policies, Parents make procedures which Children
follow (Transactional Analysis - Eric Berne).
Starting to understand better now?

ddog wrote:
On Jan 26, 12:59 pm, Dane Buson wrote:
ddog wrote:

I find top posting refreshing personally.

I do too. If only one simple line pinpointing one of many ideas, then
bottom posting is an appropriate filter. If there is only one main
idea scattered throughout, and only one main reply to that idea; then
why add minutia to a clear response? Because a web link said so? lol

Well, actually it's not 'because a web link said so', but rather that it
has become a generally agreed on polite standard. It's the equivalent
of not spitting in public, nor scratching ones crotch while talking to
the preachers wife. You can of course feel free to drool and gibber to
your hearts content, I'll try and avert my eyes.

Also, I must congratulate you on your show of wit and rhetorical skills
by quoting me without context.

Top posting always has reference below IF needed; instead of wasting
100% of time of 100% of readers. Not everyone should pay for remedial
readers or unclear individuals which we all are at times (but
hopefully not near 100%).

Of course, if you have no interest in being concise and clearly
responding to someone elses posting top posting also becomes more
attractive.

If you haven't caught on yet, 'rules' and 'procedures' for those who
can't differentiate and make decisions on their own OR critical
safety/quality issues (which this is not). If it were CRITICAL, it
would be in photographic instructions with as little verbage as
required.

You mean you didn't get the manual when you got your internet connection
setup? Oh dear, oh dear, I do fear for your safety.

Also, your cry of "The rules don't apply to me, I *know* better" will be
familar to the parent of adolescents everywhere.

As well, if someone picks apart line by line replies, then they have
nothing better to do than to wrap themselves in needless details of
typos, usually. So I like it for completely opposite reasons you do,
to differentiate who has some worthwhile thoughts, and who is saying
'look at me' because I formatted it to a web site rules which are
totally illogical under all conditions.

Actually, I was going to comment on your poor line wrapping, but I
realilzed you're crippled by using google groups. Hence your talking
about websites when we're discussing things via nntp.

The other valid format for bottom posting would be responding to
several different authors or several specific ideas.

Adults make and follow policies, Parents make procedures which
Children follow (Transactional Analysis - Eric Berne). Starting to
understand better now?

Yes, I understand perfectly now.

--
Dane Buson -
My last accident was Event One!

Andrew Muzi writes:

Do not top post. I fixed it for you. In the cases reported I
spent _less_ time with the brakes on. I was not dragging the
brakes as you say.

I am curious about the "top post" comment. It appears that bottom
posting encourages bandwidth waste and the inclusion of way too
much verbiage, especially in longer threads. Since all prior
occurances in the thread would likely contain the same stuff, seems
redundant.

I realize that some folks use readers that make this desirable, and
I'm not flaming. Just curious about why this became the "way" to
do it on usenet?

Secondly, it is possible to edit or 'snip' quoted material to
enhance readability while retaining the prior writer's point. (It's
also possible to chop up another's words into a twisted version
unlike his intent but that's another topic)

.backwards running is conversation of flow the if as, oddly reads
posting Top .annoying posting top find ,me including ,people Some

Well said. I suspect another aversion to sequential (bottom) posting
is that the writer has made up his mind what he wants to say and
doesn't care what the previous writer(s) have offered that might
conflict with his views.

A reason for not including all previous author's names is that the
response is to what the last person wrote which obviously covers what
went before. If a response to those is intended, one can scroll back
to do that directly. Besides, a stack of names at the top or even
interspersed makes unclear what transpired. the are
there to make clear from how far back the citations are.

Jobst Brandt

On Jan 26, 1:03 pm, "ddog" wrote:
Starting to understand better now?

You're still struggling with the emotional aspect of it, but you've
successfully bottom-posted a couple of times now.

You feel better, but you don't like it.

Hang in there, ddog, we're pulling for you. --D-y

On Jan 26, 4:03 pm, wrote:
A reason for not including all previous author's names is that the
response is to what the last person wrote which obviously covers what
went before. If a response to those is intended, one can scroll back
to do that directly. Besides, a stack of names at the top or even
interspersed makes unclear what transpired. the are
there to make clear from how far back the citations are.

Jobst Brandt- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

True, True, ... But that is there to see who said what before and in
what order they edited,
as if that makes a difference. It wasn't the real chronological order
of events.
And who's the 'Truth Monitor' to verify every statement in context and
facts, GW Bush - The Decider?
And what exactly does it prove anyway? So and so objected here and
there
and took it out of context here and there?
Its someone hacking a continuous thought and manipulating it into
their own faulty meanings that couldn't stand on the idea's own merit:
period.

You are assuming ideas and verbage are discrete identical independent
entities that can be manipulated like numbers. They are not!

I write in the 'Hear and Now', and don't offer proofs as to what who
said
in what sequence on which thread. That's meaningless. Facts don't have
anything to do with illogical uniform rules. In effect you are arguing
that it is better to have 20 cut up and hacked ideas in 'the format
rule'
rather than one solid continuous idea. Albert Einstein didn't think so.
He shot for
one useful idea out of 20. And he didn't get that one by shotgunning
and hacking up others'
letters in irrelevant thought sequences. Those were 20 uniformly
focused ideas he wanted
5% success rate.

If you consider the combinational effects of who said what in what
order then
you are wasting too much time, and not discovering anything near your
potential otherwise. Your facts would inherently multitask and evolve
into irrelevant minutia.
Talk about leading a horse to a stream, and can't make him drink!

In article
om,
"ddog" wrote:
Michael Press wrote:

You can read about it here.

http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm

[...]


This is a technical newsgroup. Technical discussions
are best understood and followed when the written
response follows the written matter to which the
response is directed.

--
Michael Press

On 26 Jan 2007 11:03:22 -0800, "ddog" wrote:

Top posting always has reference below IF needed; instead of wasting
100% of time of 100% of readers.

You don't get it. Bottom posting promotes cutting of extraneous info.
Bottom posting "me too" at the end of a hundre lines of text is lame.
But most of it, leave teh thing to which you're commenting on, and add
your comment below.

In general, if you're writing something that will be read by many
people, it makes sense for you to spend a little extra time editing to
save the many readers each time in reading or glancing around the
extra stuff.

If you are writing to just one or just a handful of people, then that
principle isn't so strong: a reasonable argument could be made that
it doesnt' matter so much who spends the extra time -- the reader or
the writer.


--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

In article ,
"Mamba" wrote:

"Michael Press" wrote in message
...
In article
.com
,
"ddog" wrote:
Michael Press wrote:
snip

Do not top post. I fixed it for you.

In the cases reported I spent _less_ time with the
brakes on. I was not dragging the brakes as you say.

I am curious about the "top post" comment. It appears that bottom posting
encourages bandwidth waste and the inclusion of way too much verbiage,
especially in longer threads. Since all prior occurances in the thread
would likely contain the same stuff, seems redundant.

I realize that some folks use readers that make this desirable, and I'm not
flaming. Just curious about why this became the "way" to do it on usenet?

USENET is a protocol on port 119. It was invented by
the elders who built the internet to propagate
technical news about the network. This requires an easy
to follow thread format so folks could easily identify
what was important for them in maintaining their
connection and holding up their end in maintaining the
network at large.

Naturally enough the channel expanded into tangential
discussions, as any group of like minded folk are wont
to do.

On technical newsgroups bottom posting is a necessity
for ease of understanding. We often need to go back in
a discussion to see exactly where a sub-thread took a
particular turn.

It is easy to top post. The top poster knows what he
has to say and its relevance to what was previously
written. Those who read the top post later,
particularly two or three articles later do not have
the benefit of knowing what the top poster was
thinking.

--
Michael Press

In article
. com,
"ddog" wrote:

On Jan 26, 4:03 pm, wrote:
A reason for not including all previous author's names is that the
response is to what the last person wrote which obviously covers what
went before. If a response to those is intended, one can scroll back
to do that directly. Besides, a stack of names at the top or even
interspersed makes unclear what transpired. the are
there to make clear from how far back the citations are.

Jobst Brandt- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

True, True, ... But that is there to see who said what before and in
what order they edited,
as if that makes a difference. It wasn't the real chronological order
of events.
And who's the 'Truth Monitor' to verify every statement in context and
facts, GW Bush - The Decider?
And what exactly does it prove anyway? So and so objected here and
there
and took it out of context here and there?
Its someone hacking a continuous thought and manipulating it into
their own faulty meanings that couldn't stand on the idea's own merit:
period.

You are assuming ideas and verbage are discrete identical independent
entities that can be manipulated like numbers. They are not!

I write in the 'Hear and Now', and don't offer proofs as to what who
said
in what sequence on which thread. That's meaningless. Facts don't have
anything to do with illogical uniform rules. In effect you are arguing
that it is better to have 20 cut up and hacked ideas in 'the format
rule'
rather than one solid continuous idea. Albert Einstein didn't think so.
He shot for
one useful idea out of 20. And he didn't get that one by shotgunning
and hacking up others'
letters in irrelevant thought sequences. Those were 20 uniformly
focused ideas he wanted
5% success rate.

If you consider the combinational effects of who said what in what
order then
you are wasting too much time, and not discovering anything near your
potential otherwise. Your facts would inherently multitask and evolve
into irrelevant minutia.
Talk about leading a horse to a stream, and can't make him drink!

Pure poetry.

--
Michael Press