• Bill Cox (11/16) Aug 20 2003 Hi.
• Philippe Mori (3/19) Aug 20 2003 For a "stand-alone" reply, top is probably preferable...
• Matthew Wilson (7/23) Aug 20 2003 Well Bill, I see
• Derek Parnell (8/23) Aug 20 2003 I've adopted the method of placing my response directly underneath the
• Heinz Saathoff (9/25) Aug 21 2003 I prefer the reply at the bottom. This is because it's a reply to a
• Helmut Leitner (9/18) Aug 21 2003 This group is very tolerant.
• Sean L. Palmer (5/9) Aug 21 2003 Blame Outlook Express, which defaults the cursor to the top in a reply.
• Heinz Saathoff (8/10) Aug 22 2003 Yes, it is. I've seen. Programming oriented newsgroups seem to be more
• Antti =?iso-8859-1?Q?Syk=E4ri?= (17/24) Aug 23 2003 Typographical issues seem to be of secondary relevance to most
• Ilya Minkov (7/10) Aug 21 2003 This is a vague hint, that when leaving a fullquote below, one should
• Bill Cox (4/4) Aug 21 2003 Thanks for all the info. I'm really not much of a news group reader.
• Heinz Saathoff (7/18) Aug 22 2003 A fullquote is bad in both cases. Especially if the quote is very long
• Daniel Yokomiso (22/38) Aug 24 2003 ----- Original Message -----

Bill Cox <bill viasic.com> writes:

Hi.

I'm finding it hard to read posts on this group because we all add text 
either at the top or bottom of a reply, and we're not consistent. 
Imagine this message was a reply to the follwing:

 Here is the third response.
 Here is the first response.
 Here is the original post.


 Here is the second response.


 Here is the fourth response.

Yuk.  Such posts actually exists.

I don't care which way we do it, but wouldn't it be nice if we all did 
it the same?  I'll put in a vote for top-posting, since I like to see 
the most recent text without having to scroll down (since I usually 
already read the previous posts).  I currently bottom post, due to the 
logical argument that answers should naturally follow questions.

Bill

"Philippe Mori" <philippe_mori hotmail.com> writes:

For a "stand-alone" reply, top is probably preferable...

For comments on a post, they should typically be after
the text on which it apply...

 Hi.

 I'm finding it hard to read posts on this group because we all add text
 either at the top or bottom of a reply, and we're not consistent.
 Imagine this message was a reply to the follwing:

  >> Here is the third response.
  >>>> Here is the first response.
  >>>>> Here is the original post.
  >>> Here is the second response.
  > Here is the fourth response.

 Yuk.  Such posts actually exists.

 I don't care which way we do it, but wouldn't it be nice if we all did
 it the same?  I'll put in a vote for top-posting, since I like to see
 the most recent text without having to scroll down (since I usually
 already read the previous posts).  I currently bottom post, due to the
 logical argument that answers should naturally follow questions.

 Bill

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew stlsoft.org> writes:

Well Bill, I see

"Bill Cox" <bill viasic.com> wrote in message
news:bhvsjj$25j4$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Hi.

 I'm finding it hard to read posts on this group because we all add text
 either at the top or bottom of a reply, and we're not consistent.
 Imagine this message was a reply to the follwing:

  >> Here is the third response.
  >>>> Here is the first response.
  >>>>> Here is the original post.
  >>> Here is the second response.
  > Here is the fourth response.

 Yuk.  Such posts actually exists.

your point, but sometimes it is important to answer several specific parts,
whereas other

 I don't care which way we do it, but wouldn't it be nice if we all did
 it the same?  I'll put in a vote for top-posting, since I like to see
 the most recent text without having to scroll down (since I usually
 already read the previous posts).  I currently bottom post, due to the
 logical argument that answers should naturally follow questions.

 Bill

times one can simply reply at the bottom.

What a conundrum!

Derek Parnell <derek.parnell no.spam> writes:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 09:26:13 -0400 (08/20/03 23:26:13)
, Bill Cox <bill viasic.com> wrote:

 Hi.

 I'm finding it hard to read posts on this group because we all add text 
 either at the top or bottom of a reply, and we're not consistent. Imagine 
 this message was a reply to the follwing:

 Here is the third response.
 Here is the first response.
 Here is the original post.


 Here is the second response.


 Here is the fourth response.

 Yuk.  Such posts actually exists.

 I don't care which way we do it, but wouldn't it be nice if we all did it 
 the same?  I'll put in a vote for top-posting, since I like to see the 
 most recent text without having to scroll down (since I usually already 
 read the previous posts).  I currently bottom post, due to the logical 
 argument that answers should naturally follow questions.

I've adopted the method of placing my response directly underneath the 
subject of my response.

Fortunately I tend to us Opera's newsreader (M2) and that color codes the 
levels of reply so its a LOT easier to see who is replying to what.


-- 
Derek

Heinz Saathoff <hsaat bre.ipnet.de> writes:

Bill Cox wrote...
 I'm finding it hard to read posts on this group because we all add text 
 either at the top or bottom of a reply, and we're not consistent. 
 Imagine this message was a reply to the follwing:
 
  >> Here is the third response.
  >>>> Here is the first response.
  >>>>> Here is the original post.
  >>> Here is the second response.
  > Here is the fourth response.
 
 Yuk.  Such posts actually exists.

I prefer the reply at the bottom. This is because it's a reply to a 
message. When reading you first see the original text and then the 
posters reply. 
This is the style prefered in german newsgroups. The other style is 
called TOFU which is "Text Oben, Fullquote Unten" in German. If you post 
this way you'll get flamed in german groups.


 I don't care which way we do it, but wouldn't it be nice if we all did 
 it the same?  I'll put in a vote for top-posting, since I like to see 
 the most recent text without having to scroll down (since I usually 
 already read the previous posts).  I currently bottom post, due to the 
 logical argument that answers should naturally follow questions.

That's the way I also prefer. 


- Heinz

Helmut Leitner <helmut.leitner chello.at> writes:

Heinz Saathoff wrote:
 
 Bill Cox wrote...
 I'm finding it hard to read posts on this group 


...
  I currently bottom post, due to the
 logical argument that answers should naturally follow questions.

 
 That's the way I also prefer.
 
 - Heinz

This group is very tolerant. 

Typically top posting is attacked vigorously in the usenet.
Bottom is logical, reader friendly and the standard.

So if a discussion should start, then the outcome is predicable.

--
Helmut Leitner    leitner hls.via.at   
Graz, Austria   www.hls-software.com

"Sean L. Palmer" <palmer.sean verizon.net> writes:

Blame Outlook Express, which defaults the cursor to the top in a reply.
Older mail programs (Netscape) got this right.

Sean

"Helmut Leitner" <helmut.leitner chello.at> wrote in message
news:3F44B997.245E63AB chello.at...
 This group is very tolerant.

 Typically top posting is attacked vigorously in the usenet.
 Bottom is logical, reader friendly and the standard.

 So if a discussion should start, then the outcome is predicable.

Heinz Saathoff <hsaat bre.ipnet.de> writes:

Helmut Leitner schrieb...
 This group is very tolerant.

Yes, it is. I've seen. Programming oriented newsgroups seem to be more 
tollerant than other interest groups it seems. I subscribe to 
comp.arch.embedded and find fullquote postings there too but I can't 
remember a flame posting there.


 Typically top posting is attacked vigorously in the usenet.

I'm not so familiar with english groups. I've mostly seen them in german 
groups.

- Heinz

Antti =?iso-8859-1?Q?Syk=E4ri?= <jsykari gamma.hut.fi> writes:

In article <MPG.19afde494536970b9896cd news.digitalmars.com>, Heinz
Saathoff wrote:
 Helmut Leitner schrieb...
 This group is very tolerant.

 
 Yes, it is. I've seen. Programming oriented newsgroups seem to be more 
 tollerant than other interest groups it seems. I subscribe to 
 comp.arch.embedded and find fullquote postings there too but I can't 
 remember a flame posting there.

Typographical issues seem to be of secondary relevance to most
programmers. Probably because of lack of globally accepted coding
standards: we are accustomed to seeing programs written with so many
kinds of different coding conventions (some of them ugly as hell) that
we have become immune to such external annoyances.

However, people that spend most of their time reading properly
capitalized and formatted text in natural languages have the tendency to
be very strict about the rules :)

Oh, and of course, this posting is an example of my preferred quoting
style: quote as little as possible but as much as it is needed to make
the context clear, and trust people to have "read parent message" in
their newsreaders if they want to know more. (Does Outlook already have
it?)  But I occasionally top-post, especially when replying to
top-posted messages, so it's not exactly a religious issue.

-Antti

Ilya Minkov <midiclub 8ung.at> writes:

Heinz Saathoff wrote:
 The other style is 
 called TOFU which is "Text Oben, Fullquote Unten" in German. If you post 
 this way you'll get flamed in german groups.

This is a vague hint, that when leaving a fullquote below, one should 
delete it altogether. I didn't ever get flamed for not quoting, but i 
did for TOFU. :) I believe the fullquote above is much worse than below. 
So i tend to pick several sentences out of the original message, just to 
show connection, and try to avoid fullquotes.

-eye

Bill Cox <bill viasic.com> writes:

Thanks for all the info.  I'm really not much of a news group reader.

It sounds like bottom-posting wins, and deleting portions of previous 
posts is good.

Bill

Heinz Saathoff <hsaat bre.ipnet.de> writes:

Ilya Minkov schrieb...
 Heinz Saathoff wrote:
 The other style is 
 called TOFU which is "Text Oben, Fullquote Unten" in German. If you post 
 this way you'll get flamed in german groups.

 
 This is a vague hint, that when leaving a fullquote below, one should 
 delete it altogether. 

That's right.

 I didn't ever get flamed for not quoting, but i 
 did for TOFU. :) I believe the fullquote above is much worse than below. 

A fullquote is bad in both cases. Especially if the quote is very long 
and the reply is only one/two lines. I've seen 200+ lines of fullquote 
and a single 'Ack' or 'Me too' as reply.

 So i tend to pick several sentences out of the original message, just to 
 show connection, and try to avoid fullquotes.

ACK

- Heinz

"Daniel Yokomiso" <daniel_yokomiso yahoo.com.br> writes:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Cox" <bill viasic.com>
Newsgroups: D
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 10:26 AM
Subject: Top posting vs bottom posting


 Hi.

 I'm finding it hard to read posts on this group because we all add text
 either at the top or bottom of a reply, and we're not consistent.
 Imagine this message was a reply to the follwing:

  >> Here is the third response.
  >>>> Here is the first response.
  >>>>> Here is the original post.
  >>> Here is the second response.
  > Here is the fourth response.

 Yuk.  Such posts actually exists.

 I don't care which way we do it, but wouldn't it be nice if we all did
 it the same?  I'll put in a vote for top-posting, since I like to see
 the most recent text without having to scroll down (since I usually
 already read the previous posts).  I currently bottom post, due to the
 logical argument that answers should naturally follow questions.

 Bill

Hi,

    I prefer to use bottom posting, but sometimes I respond in the middle of
the post (with a "Comments embedded" warning at the top). IMO there are
three kinds of problematic posts:

1 - posts filled with several layers of discussion: they should be snipped
once they get too old. Usually only the last two responses are neessary.
2 - Top posting, because they force you to find the replied message, read
it, then go to the beginning of the email and read the answer.
3 - "Me too" replies, except on voting.

    Best regards,
    Daniel Yokomiso.

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/8/2003