Stupid netiquette question

[Wayne Knight]

Not even sure, don't care really, if i spelled it right but for the net
nannies:

After snipping and replying to usenet posts for some time now, I agree top
posting is a pain in the arse to follow at times, but why is top posting
such a usenet no-no when responding to email, top posting is quite common
and acceptable?

A dummie wants to know

[daytripper]

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:12:07 -0500, "Wayne Knight" >
wrote:

>Not even sure, don't care really, if i spelled it right but for the net
>nannies:
>
>After snipping and replying to usenet posts for some time now, I agree top
>posting is a pain in the arse to follow at times, but why is top posting
>such a usenet no-no when responding to email, top posting is quite common
>and acceptable?
>
>A dummie wants to know

It's a rare usenet thread that consists solely of an initial post and a single
reply.

Following more typical, multi-response/multi-responder threads is a heck of a
lot easier if the "transcript" follows the same chronological order as the
posts...

/daytripper (pretty simple, really)

[Scott Seidman]

"Wayne Knight" > wrote in
:

> Not even sure, don't care really, if i spelled it right but for the
> net nannies:
>
> After snipping and replying to usenet posts for some time now, I agree
> top posting is a pain in the arse to follow at times, but why is top
> posting such a usenet no-no when responding to email, top posting is
> quite common and acceptable?
>
> A dummie wants to know
>
>

Mostly history. Usenet began in the day of text terminals, or even
teletypes! With top posting, you'd have to page through the most recent
post to see what the hell the person was referring to, and going back to
the top of the post was a PITA.

Nowadays, w/ graphics terminals, paging back and forth is easier on most,
but not all, newsreaders. The bigger problems comes in forming a cohesive
reply post when some people have top posted, and some have bottom posted,
according to preference. Best to have all people posting one way, and
bottom is the historical preference

Scott

[Rob S.]

daytripper > wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:12:07 -0500, "Wayne Knight" >
> wrote:
>
> >Not even sure, don't care really, if i spelled it right but for the net
> >nannies:
> >
> >After snipping and replying to usenet posts for some time now, I agree top
> >posting is a pain in the arse to follow at times, but why is top posting
> >such a usenet no-no when responding to email, top posting is quite common
> >and acceptable?
> >
> >A dummie wants to know
>
> It's a rare usenet thread that consists solely of an initial post and a single
> reply.
>
> Following more typical, multi-response/multi-responder threads is a heck of a
> lot easier if the "transcript" follows the same chronological order as the
> posts...
>
> /daytripper (pretty simple, really)

as long as some of the threads have been here in ROFF, they are not
unique.
some of the soc.religion... groups from earlier days had single
threads spanning more than a year. trying to follow a theological
discussion with a mix of top and bottom posting was near impossible.

it is just a whole lot easier to follow the running conversation
reading down the page as is the convention for western languages....

[Chas Wade]

(Rob S.) wrote:
> trying to follow a theological
>discussion with a mix of top and bottom posting was near impossible.
>
I suspect the sequence was the easiest part to decipher. ;-)

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html

[Chas Wade]

"Wayne Knight" > wrote:
>Not even sure, don't care really, if i spelled it right but for the net
>nannies:
>
>After snipping and replying to usenet posts for some time now, I agree
>top
>posting is a pain in the arse to follow at times, but why is top
>posting
>such a usenet no-no when responding to email, top posting is quite
>common
>and acceptable?
>
>A dummie wants to know
>
As a follow on to this, I'm wondering if my practice of cutting out
most of the prior discussion and just leaving the parts I'm replying to
is considered a good practice or not. My presumption is that people
have a newsreadeer that shows then the messages arranges as threads so
they can look above to prior postings for the rest of the info. Is
that right, or am I expecting too much?

Another dummy wants to know too.

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html

[Scott Seidman]

(Greg Pavlov) wrote in news:403e4119.17073830
@news.individual.de:

> On 26 Feb 2004 13:19:55 GMT, Scott Seidman
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>Mostly history. Usenet began in the day of text terminals, or even
>>teletypes! With top posting, you'd have to page through the most recent
>>post to see what the hell the person was referring to, and going back to
>>the top of the post was a PITA.
>
>
> This never made sense to me, and I first read usenet
> stuff on early Decwriters through 1200 baud connections.
> If the new stuff was on top, you only needed to go into
> the quoted stuff far enough to recall the subject and
> you could bail out as soon as you did. The alternative
> was to wade through *all* the quoted stuff just to get
> to the new. Top-posting made a heck of a lot more sense.
> For a long time I, and other people that I am aware of,
> would bail out if someone top-quoted more than 20 - 30
> lines' worth (later a screenful).
>
>

Usenet was not really time or cost effective on 1200 baud decwriters. Its
a much more efficient time sap now!

Scott

[Scott Seidman]

Chas Wade > wrote in news:Z9s%b.129328
$uV3.645040@attbi_s51:

> As a follow on to this, I'm wondering if my practice of cutting out
> most of the prior discussion and just leaving the parts I'm replying to
> is considered a good practice or not. My presumption is that people
> have a newsreadeer that shows then the messages arranges as threads so
> they can look above to prior postings for the rest of the info. Is
> that right, or am I expecting too much?

That's actually preferred.

Scott

[Osmo Jauhiainen]

"Chas Wade" > wrote in message
news:Z9s%b.129328$uV3.645040@attbi_s51...
> As a follow on to this, I'm wondering if my practice of cutting out
> most of the prior discussion and just leaving the parts I'm replying to
> is considered a good practice or not. My presumption is that people
> have a newsreadeer that shows then the messages arranges as threads so
> they can look above to prior postings for the rest of the info. Is
> that right, or am I expecting too much?
>

I am using OE for newsgroups and it shows the threads as you
presumed! I am usin the same technique as you. Top posting is bad, because
I have to move my eyes continuously up and down - up and down -...

OsmoJ

In article <Z9s%b.129328$uV3.645040@attbi_s51>,
says...
> As a follow on to this, I'm wondering if my practice of cutting out
> most of the prior discussion and just leaving the parts I'm replying to
> is considered a good practice or not. My presumption is that people
> have a newsreadeer that shows then the messages arranges as threads so
> they can look above to prior postings for the rest of the info. Is
> that right, or am I expecting too much?

You should trim your followup so that just enough information is left
for the reader to understand what you are replying about.

Every newsreader I've ever used, deletes (or at least hides) articles
after I read them. If I read a post today, and someone responds
tomorrow I'll have no idea what exactly the second person is replying to
if they remove all the text.

Looks like you are doing fine.
- Ken

[Scott Seidman]

"Osmo Jauhiainen" > wrote in
:

>
> "Chas Wade" > wrote in message
> news:Z9s%b.129328$uV3.645040@attbi_s51...
>> As a follow on to this, I'm wondering if my practice of cutting out
>> most of the prior discussion and just leaving the parts I'm replying
>> to is considered a good practice or not. My presumption is that
>> people have a newsreadeer that shows then the messages arranges as
>> threads so they can look above to prior postings for the rest of the
>> info. Is that right, or am I expecting too much?
>>
>
> I am using OE for newsgroups and it shows the threads as you
> presumed! I am usin the same technique as you. Top posting is bad,
> because I have to move my eyes continuously up and down - up and down
> -...
>
> OsmoJ
>
>
>

Most newsreaders don't list posts that have already been read and marked as
such in .newsrc. Never assume that the original post is readily available.
Include enough of the previous post(s) to make sense of your contribution.
You don't need to keep the whole thing, just enough to make your point.

Scott

[riverman]

"Scott Seidman" > wrote in message
. 1.4...
> "Osmo Jauhiainen" > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "Chas Wade" > wrote in message
> > news:Z9s%b.129328$uV3.645040@attbi_s51...

> >> I'm wondering if ...cutting out...is considered a good practice...
> >
> > Top posting is bad...
> >
> ... keep... just enough to make your point.
>

Hmm, seems a bit thin if you do that, though. :-)

--riverman

[just al]

Thanks for posting the question. To expand upon it. What if one accesses
this Usenet site from MS Outlook and there are no formal rules with which to
agree before participating?

[daytripper]

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:58:52 GMT, "just al" > wrote:

>Thanks for posting the question. To expand upon it. What if one accesses
>this Usenet site from MS Outlook and there are no formal rules with which to
>agree before participating?

The noob gets "trained" when (s)he loses sight of the path...

/daytripper (And you forgot to change the subject to "Stupid question")

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:54:33 GMT, Chas Wade
> wrote:

(snipped)
>>
>As a follow on to this, I'm wondering if my practice of cutting out
>most of the prior discussion and just leaving the parts I'm replying to
>is considered a good practice or not. My presumption is that people
>have a newsreadeer that shows then the messages arranges as threads so
>they can look above to prior postings for the rest of the info. Is
>that right, or am I expecting too much?

Quite correct. Leave enough to let people know what you're responding
to, but not so much that you've got a page or two of quoting followed
by "me, too." or "I don't agree."

It used to be a convention that you'd do as I did above and put in a
brief word or two, as I put "(snipped)", to let everyone know that
they weren't seeing everything. I don't see that happening much, if
any, in the past year or two.
--

rbc:vixen,Minnow Goddess,Willow Watcher,and all that sort of thing.
Often taunted by trout.
Only a fool would refuse to believe in luck. Only a damn fool would rely on it.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:58:52 GMT, "just al" >
wrote:

>Thanks for posting the question. To expand upon it. What if one accesses
>this Usenet site from MS Outlook and there are no formal rules with which to
>agree before participating?
>


Well, one could hang out and observe (called lurking) before jumping
in and posting. One could ask advice as one's first post and be told
of Web pages to access on Nettiquette or news groups, such as
news.announce.newreaders.
--

rbc:vixen,Minnow Goddess,Willow Watcher,and all that sort of thing.
Often taunted by trout.
Only a fool would refuse to believe in luck. Only a damn fool would rely on it.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

[-- Rob]

>I suspect the sequence was the easiest part to decipher. ;-)
>
>Chas

indeed! and in a different vein, extremely long threads about ethnic jokes
created an entire genre of ethnic joke templates. haven't seen them in a while
but they were priceless. sort of like 'unethical'......
-- so much fishing, so little time --
--please remuv the 'NOWAY2it' from my email addy to email me--

[Wayne Knight]

"daytripper" > wrote in message
...
>
> Following more typical, multi-response/multi-responder threads is a heck
of a
> lot easier if the "transcript" follows the same chronological order as the
> posts...
>
> /daytripper (pretty simple, really)

Thanks Trip to you and the others who responded for the explanation.

[Mike Connor]

"just al" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
> Thanks for posting the question. To expand upon it. What if one accesses
> this Usenet site from MS Outlook and there are no formal rules with which
to
> agree before participating?
>
>

This is not a site, it is a newsgroup. There is a fundamental difference.

There are no rules here. Any rules to which you may be forced to adhere, are
the result of the contract of use with your internet service provider.
Nobody here can force you to do anything at all.

You should look up more information on what Usenet actually is. This might
enlighten you considerably, and prevent you from asking rather silly
questions.

What you are doing, and what others have done in the past, is rather like
driving a car at 150 mph down the highway, and then trying to ask somebody
in a passing car where the brake pedal is, and what it is for.

Others may well be annoyed at this, as in their opinion, you should never
have received a licence to drive.

TL
MC

[rw]

Mike Connor wrote:
>
> What you are doing, and what others have done in the past, is rather like
> driving a car at 150 mph down the highway, and then trying to ask somebody
> in a passing car where the brake pedal is, and what it is for.

That's perfectly apt, Mike.

It's simultaneously funny and sad to watch poor newbies who stumble into
this weird place.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[Chas Wade]

> wrote:
>In article <Z9s%b.129328$uV3.645040@attbi_s51>,

>Every newsreader I've ever used, deletes (or at least hides) articles
>after I read them. If I read a post today, and someone responds
>tomorrow I'll have no idea what exactly the second person is replying
>to
>if they remove all the text.

I use NewsPro which has options for saving the old ones. Outlook
Express saved the old ones too, maybe there was an option to delete
them. Newspro also automatically deletes all the replies to a message
I delete explicitly. There's a free version and a subscription
version. They both work fine.

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html

[Wolfgang]

"Chas Wade" > wrote in message
news:X5s%b.129323$uV3.645357@attbi_s51...
> (Rob S.) wrote:
> > trying to follow a theological
> >discussion with a mix of top and bottom posting was near impossible.
> >
> I suspect the sequence was the easiest part to decipher. ;-)

All the more reason to have a sequence that's easy to decipher. :)

Wolfgang
who has never yet encountered a problem that needed more complications.