 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Models / December 2006What does "top posting" mean?
I keep seeeing messages that blast people for doing it, but I don't know what it means. By virtue of that, I very well may have done it at some point (for which I retroactively apologize). I looked in the FAQ, but it didn't say anything about it. This is "top posting"...all the rage in the buisiness world (at least in mine...) for anwsering e-mail, for some reason frowned upon on the net. Personally, it makes me no difference...  Signature- Rufus > I keep seeeing messages that blast people for doing it, but I don't know > what it means. By virtue of that, I very well may have done it at some > point (for which I retroactively apologize). I looked in the FAQ, but it > didn't say anything about it. ...and I suppose this would be "bottom posting"?..the seemingly prefered net-iquite. - Rufus. In article <c4cbc10df7e476705c8466b5c180b396 @localhost.talkaboutcrafting.com>, timetraveler658@yahooyahoo.com says... It's like this...I've posted my reply over your original message, which the self-proclaimed net-cops will flame you for. A lot of people get their panties in a bunch over it, but unless you're posting a long reply, I don't see what the big deal is. > I keep seeeing messages that blast people for doing it, but I don't know > what it means. By virtue of that, I very well may have done it at some > point (for which I retroactively apologize). I looked in the FAQ, but it > didn't say anything about it. > I keep seeeing messages that blast people for doing it, but I don't know > what it means. By virtue of that, I very well may have done it at some > point (for which I retroactively apologize). I looked in the FAQ, but it > didn't say anything about it. Top posting is when a reply is posted above the message that is being replied to. It's becoming a convention in e-mail where it makes no big difference since e-mail involves usually only a couple of people and limited replies. On usenet it's common for there to be multiple replies from multiple posters. Threads develop and top posting messes up the continuity of threads. It's easier to be able to follow a thread sequentially by reading the chain of replies from top to bottom, so that if one wants to make reference to a prior message one need only scroll up. That loss of continuity is what annoys many usenent users and causes them to flame top posters. HTH Cheers!!! BobbyG This is top posting >I keep seeeing messages that blast people for doing it, but I don't know >what it means. By virtue of that, I very well may have done it at some >point (for which I retroactively apologize). I looked in the FAQ, but it >didn't say anything about it. It's a method of screwing up the English language so that all new replies appear ABOVE the original text, instead of below it as with any normal method of English (or most other languages) writing. It's a bit like writing a book by starting near the end, writing a few paragraphs, then moving back up the page a bit, writing a few more BEFORE the first bit, then again and again. It might make sense for a single short reply, but as soon as there's a third entry in the reply thread it's just a bloody awful mess. Wulf Disco58 said the following on 10/12/06 19:42: > I keep seeeing messages that blast people for doing it, but I don't know > what it means. By virtue of that, I very well may have done it at some > point (for which I retroactively apologize). I looked in the FAQ, but it > didn't say anything about it. <http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html> If you think of the history of reading, it's been that for a long time and seems to work well, Usenet posting and emails being an extension of that. Try telling a joke but giving the punchline first to see if it works with your mates! :-) Trimming the post down does help greatly though! Richard. Signature"Naturally the common people don't want war, but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. Tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and endangering the country. It works the same in every country." Reichsmarshall Herman Goering, Nuremberg, 1946 This is top posting and only real mouth breathing weenies that never managed to hold onto their lunch money long enough to buy lunch still get their panties in a serious knot about it. > I keep seeeing messages that blast people for doing it, but I don't know > what it means. By virtue of that, I very well may have done it at some > point (for which I retroactively apologize). I looked in the FAQ, but it > didn't say anything about it. > This is top posting and only real mouth breathing weenies that never > managed to hold onto their lunch money long enough to buy lunch still > get their panties in a serious knot about it. ... and it is perfectly OK to the greedy thoughtless lazy bastards who took it (lunch money) from them. It's used in business because it's the way most message programs place your cursor and most 'business' people are too stupid to figure out how to change that. > > I keep seeeing messages that blast people for doing it, but I don't know > > what it means. By virtue of that, I very well may have done it at some > > point (for which I retroactively apologize). On the other hand, anyone with half a brain interleaves a reply to the portions of the message that are relevant. In this way, it makes more sense to the reader. Never apologize for being sensitive or for asking reasonable questions. > > I looked in the FAQ, but it didn't say anything about it. That's because there is no FAQ. This is Usenet ... -- C.R. Krieger (Been there; done that) C.R. Krieger said the following on 11/12/06 20:58: > On the other hand, anyone with half a brain interleaves a reply to the > portions of the message that are relevant. In this way, it makes more [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That's because there is no FAQ. This is Usenet ... There is although it's called the Usenet Guidelines although propagated into various forms. After Google took over from Dejanews it's all turned to crap. When a new user joined up with a bulletin board the Usenet Guidelines were the first thing one was told to download and read. <http://linux.sgms-centre.com/misc/netiquette.php> <http://www.google.com/Top/Computers/Usenet/> Richard. Signature"Naturally the common people don't want war, but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. Tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and endangering the country. It works the same in every country." Reichsmarshall Herman Goering, Nuremberg, 1946 I prefer top posting. I like to see what the new poster has to say right off the bat. I don't need to scroll down through previous post that I probably have already read to try to fine the new material. If the previous posts have been properly trimmed, to remove the non-pertinent material, top or bottom posts should both be easily accessible. J. Bright > I prefer top posting. I like to see what the new poster has to say right off > the bat. I don't need to scroll down through previous post that I probably [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > J. Bright I find that the worst ones often take so long to trim that I forget what I wanted to say by the time I've finished trimming. I guess the next step is to repeat myself. ;] Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. The next step is to repeat yourself? >> I prefer top posting. I like to see what the new poster has to say right off >> the bat. I don't need to scroll down through previous post that I probably [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. PS: The above is what is wrong with top posting. Did my sentence make any sense to you before you read the original message afterwards? To complete my sins, no trimming at all, not even the sigs, and adding material at the bottom, too. If you didn't scroll down, you've missed this brilliant prose. Signature-Jack I agree. I almost always top-post - that's where my news reader automatically puts me when I reply to a thread anyway. It's really a matter of personal preference with really no more importance than a preference for Times Roman vs., Arial font when you type a letter. If everyone top-posted there would still be that chronologic progression of the thread that someone mentioned a couple days ago. the only difference is that, as you quite accurately pointed out, it relieves the need to scroll down through stuff you've already read to get to the new post at the bottom. SignatureCheers: Bill Woodier In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility -- I welcome it. My Home Page: http://www.bill-woodier.com/home.htm -- >I prefer top posting. I like to see what the new poster has to say right >off the bat. I don't need to scroll down through previous post that I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > J. Bright Not to mention that if you use a decent reader you choose the auto option for top or bottom, as well as display by thread tree - which is what I always do if I really want to examine a discourse anyway. So it makes me no difference - top or bottom post...variety is good. Signature- Rufus > I agree. I almost always top-post - that's where my news reader > automatically puts me when I reply to a thread anyway. It's really a matter [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that, as you quite accurately pointed out, it relieves the need to scroll > down through stuff you've already read to get to the new post at the bottom. > I keep seeeing messages that blast people for doing it, but I don't know > what it means. By virtue of that, I very well may have done it at some > point (for which I retroactively apologize). I looked in the FAQ, but it > didn't say anything about it. My two cents. I belong to one mailing list that requires top posting. There are fans of each. I think it depends on the length of the message being replied to. A short one such as this is fine either way. If you are replying to a VERY long message, more than a screenful, and you do not edit down the message, then top posting becomes more readable. Actually, the best bet is to edit the message down to a specific sentence or two that you are specifically replying to. Also, in a thread with many previous replies, consider editing out only the last reply, the one you are replying to. No need to enclose all twenty previous comments. I also prefer to see top posts,to avoid wasting time rereading the same topic endlessly.But then,this is another one of those anal retentive things like poor spelling that the grammar nazis like to bitch about.I don't hold it against anyone no matter where they post,as long as I can understand it. > > I keep seeeing messages that blast people for doing it, but I don't know > > what it means. By virtue of that, I very well may have done it at some [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the last reply, the one you are replying to. No need to enclose all > twenty previous comments. > I keep seeeing messages that blast people for doing it, but I don't know > what it means. By virtue of that, I very well may have done it at some > point (for which I retroactively apologize). I looked in the FAQ, but it > didn't say anything about it. Top-posting is the usenet equivalent of belching in public or chewing with your mouth open. It doesn't really hurt anyone, but it shows a certain character (or lack thereof.) To define, it's the act of posting your comments above the previous comments, in reverse sequential order. Most netiquette guides recommend against it, or don't mention it. Really, the lack of consideration isn't from top-posting itself, but the lazy lack of trimming that most top-posters engage in. You can get thousands of lines of reverse-sequential material for a one-liner or a "LOL" post. That almost never happens with proper-posters. Full-quoting is definitely poor netiquette. Here's a nice summary with embedded links: http://linux.sgms-centre.com/misc/netiquette.php#toppost Here's some addtional stuff: http://www.river.com/users/share/etiquette/ Most of the objection to this "rule" of netiquette comes from lazy top-posters, who will defend their "right" to belch in public, chew with their mouth open, or whatever other behavior they do, and if you don't like it, you can "get over it." After all, since it makes the most sense *to them*, to hell with anyone else, right? *burp* ;) :shrug: Takes all kinds, I suppose. A: Top-posters. Q: What's the most annoying thing about usenet? :) E.P. BRAAAHHHHP...oops, 'scuse me... Signature- Rufus > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > E.P. I always erase everything. If I had to choose I would be a bottom poster. That's a good thing since my wife is a top poster. But we really shouldn't go there, should we (:> > I always erase everything. If I had to choose I would be a bottom > poster. That's a good thing since my wife is a top poster. But we > really shouldn't go there, should we (:> LOL. Try soc.sexuaility.general. ...either I'm getting better, or my medication is wearing off...NURSE!!! Signature- Rufus > I always erase everything. If I had to choose I would be a bottom > poster. That's a good thing since my wife is a top poster. But we > really shouldn't go there, should we (:> >I always erase everything. If I had to choose I would be a bottom poster. >That's a good thing since my wife is a top poster. But we > really shouldn't go there, should we (:> Especially since we are car/ship/boat/plane/space (you get the idea) modeling group, not "xxx" modeling<g> >>I always erase everything. If I had to choose I would be a bottom poster. >>That's a good thing since my wife is a top poster. But we >>really shouldn't go there, should we (:> >> > Especially since we are car/ship/boat/plane/space (you get the idea) > modeling group, not "xxx" modeling<g> ...I thought we were equestrians...what with the posting in the saddle...er...post... Signature- Rufus > I always erase everything. If I had to choose I would be a bottom > poster. That's a good thing since my wife is a top poster. But we > really shouldn't go there, should we (:> No because someone might ask if you have a four-poster at home. ;) Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. > No because someone might ask if you have a four-poster at home. ;) But what is he a poster child for? > > No because someone might ask if you have a four-poster at home. ;) > > But what is he a poster child for? I'm tempted to say 'responsibility'. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. ;) >Takes all kinds, I suppose. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >:) Almost as exasperating are the posters that don't quote *any* of the message they're replying to... SignatureAl Superczynski, MFE, IPMS/USA #3795, continuous since 1968 My "From" address is munged - use 'modeleral (at) swbell (dot) net' to respond via email. Check out my want lists and eBay listings at "Al's Place": http://home.swbell.net/arfunguy/index.html "Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to, and the critics will flame you every time." yeah, that really pisses me off, too. (someone had to do it.) >I keep seeeing messages that blast people for doing it, but I don't know >what it means. Top posting is what the net-ninnies get their panties in a knot about. Personally, I prefer that the reply be at the top. I don't have to keep re-reading the original posts every reply. It really frosts my butt to have to repeatedly scroll down past the replies that I have already read 20, 50 or 100 times before. Once you read the original post, it seems quite redundant to me to have to re-read it again and again and again and.... I have a better solution - why don't we all just clip the bulk of the text and save just a line or two from the post you are replying (like I did above) to and save us all the repeated history lessons. John Alger IPMS 10906 Charlotte Scale Modelers > I have a better solution - why don't we all just clip the bulk of the > text and save just a line or two from the post you are replying (like > I did above) to and save us all the repeated history lessons. Most of us do but some lazy f.cks don't. > I have a better solution - why don't we all just clip the bulk of the > text and save just a line or two from the post you are replying (like > I did above) to and save us all the repeated history lessons. That's exactly what is generally preferred. Unfortunately many people don't make the effort to trim. BobbyG |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.