Another vote for top posting

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/19/04 11:17:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,

readnwrite@... writes:

> This is my ideal also ... if each person responds at the top, there is

> usually no scrolling involved, unless you want to scroll down to read

> the comments from the previous poster if you haven't already read

> them. If everyone responds at the top, the order of the comments is

> intact from bottom to top, with the most recent at the top.

Ironically, your post took up two pages in my screen, so I had to do a fair

amount of scrolling to read it. Scrolling is required for most emails for most

messages, and the main problem with bottom-posting is injudicious editing.

There's just absolutely no reason to post at the bottom of an entire text--

just delete what isn't relevant.

But you bring up a great point: one way to determine whether top-posting is

permissable for a given post is how much room it takes up. If you have less

than one page total (in an email browser), then top-post. Ideally, top-posting

would be done when you can see the other person's text without scrolling. But

if you have something longer than one or two paragraphs, most folks will have

to scroll to read it, and it's much easier to follow if you've posted your

comments under a judiciously edited piece of text.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Thanks Judith!

This is my ideal also ... if each person responds at the top, there is

usually no scrolling involved, unless you want to scroll down to read

the comments from the previous poster if you haven't already read

them. If everyone responds at the top, the order of the comments is

intact from bottom to top, with the most recent at the top.

Of course, responding to long posts is another animal, and responding

paragraph by paragraph in that case instead of at the top is helpful.

I don't have much time for this list but really appreciate the

exchange of information on the subject of NT. I imagine the majority

on this list is in my same shoes. It's helpful to not have to do a lot

of scrolling.

Another request I'd like to make is to include the person's name you

are responding to, not just the comment you are responding to. That

way if someone wants to find the original post, it's much easier to do

so.

And, one more comment ... wasn't there a political list created for

threads such as the " money and health " one?

Cheers,

Fern

----- Original Message -----

From: " Judith Alta " <jaltak@...>

> If the response is to a long message I don't mind a

paragraph-by-paragraph

> response. It makes it easy to follow the conversation.

>

> My ideal is:

> Respond at the top, unless the original is very long. Then respond

by

> paragraphs.

> Clip everything from the original message that is not being

responded to.

> Leave enough of the original message to so readers know what you are

talking

> about.

> And lastly, but far from leastly, please sign your posts.

> Thank you,

>

> Judith Alta

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@@ Fern/Chris:

> > This is my ideal also ... if each person responds at the top,

there is

> > usually no scrolling involved, unless you want to scroll down to

read

> > the comments from the previous poster if you haven't already read

> > them. If everyone responds at the top, the order of the comments

is

> > intact from bottom to top, with the most recent at the top.

>

> Ironically, your post took up two pages in my screen, so I had to

do a fair

> amount of scrolling to read it. Scrolling is required for most

emails for most

> messages, and the main problem with bottom-posting is injudicious

editing.

> There's just absolutely no reason to post at the bottom of an

entire text--

> just delete what isn't relevant.

@@@@@@@@@@@@

i'm with Chris--scrolling shouldn't be an issue with bottom-posting

if people trim all but the part they're responding to, which

shouldn't be more than a few sentences usually. breaking things up

into separate points is the key here. the only real problem is this

damn line-wrapping thing on , drives me nuts...

trim, trim, trim, trim....

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/19/04 3:48:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,

readnwrite@... writes:

> Why does it matter how much you have to scroll to read a top post? I

> can usually tell from just glancing at what I don't have to scroll to

> read in a top post whether I want to read all of it or hit the delete

> button. If it's something I WANT to read, I don't mind scrolling to

> read the rest of it. However, it's rather annoying to have to scroll

> on EVERY post just to find out if it's something I want to take my

> time to read.

It isn't so much the scrolling per se, it is the illogical order, or should I

say 'disorder,' of the post. It isn't that you have to scroll, it's that you

have to scroll back and forth.

As has pointed out numerous times, if a third party is to reply to a

top-poster, he would have to cut and paste the initial post above the second

post in order to retain any clarity, in a case where the second post contains

ambiguity that would be dissolved upon the retention of the initial post.

Furthermore, top-posting encourages a variety of other e-faux paus, such as

the flagrant disregard for trimming posts, and retention of entire long posts

below the response. It also encourages miscommunication because a second post

can be easily misinterpreted by the author of a third post if the initial post

is not present.

Finally, if a person responds to more than one point in a post, top-posting

disables the person from properly dividing the initial post into its

appropriate components, which is disastrous if third and fourth posts are made,

and the

same is done, since it is nearly impossible for anyone either posting or

reading to scroll down and *find* the appropriate comments. The author of the

second post might see nothing wrong with this, because each point is contained

in

the post immediately following, disregarding the possibility that third,

fourth, fifth, etc, posts might be added, where one would have to scroll to each

successive post and find the relevant point each time to get the historical

trajectory of the discussion, and then do so for each successive point! With

bottom-posting, proper trimming, and proper incision, one needs only scroll one

continuous time, and one needs not search for the relevant history at all; with

top-posting, one needs scroll back and forth multiple, and, eventually,

possibly dozens of times.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/19/04 4:11:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jaltak@... writes:

> Another reason for top posting is that when there are many responses to a

> post we have to " reread " the same post for each bottom posted response.

First, you don't have to do any rereading at all. You merely must scroll for

the space that is taken. But you need only scroll in one direction, whereas

someone who *wants* to be able to read the previous posts need scroll in

multiple directions to do so.

>Because I, and I'm sure others, read many of the posts on this list I do not

>find it necessary to read the entire message being responded to.

This is a perfect example of why you don't have to, and a perfect example of

why top-posting is extremely annoying. Notice that I only quoted the

*necessary* portion of text to respond to, not the " entire message. "

Notice also that you started your sentence with " Because, " making it

absolutely impossible to have any idea to what question you are referring

without

scrolling down to read the original message. Furthermore, as has

pointed

out, in order for me to respond in a way that could have kept the logical

continuity of the discussion, I'd have had to copy and paste my original

response.

Had you bottom-posted and properly edited my post for the relevant

information, I wouldn't have to do so. As it stands now, because you

top-posted,

anyone who wants to know to what question you were referring by " Because... " has

to

not simply scroll, but go into their " old mail " box or the message archives

and try to look it up among the dozens of posts in this thread!

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

I think the rule should be more stringent than that. Different people have

different screen resolutions, so you can't always judge what will be

annoying for other people. IMO top-posting is acceptable when (a) the

portion of the post being quoted is reasonably small (it's just wasteful

and unnecessary in most cases to backquote more than a few lines) and (

the response is a single unbroken paragraph on the short side. This way

you can check the flow of conversation with a glance. Otherwise, forget it.

>But you bring up a great point: one way to determine whether top-posting is

>permissable for a given post is how much room it takes up. If you have less

>than one page total (in an email browser), then top-post. Ideally,

>top-posting

>would be done when you can see the other person's text without scrolling.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/19/04 8:48:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jaltak@... writes:

> For your benefit I must remember to put one line responses at the bottom of

> very long posts.

>

> Happy hunting! ;-)

Judith,

You can *edit* the initial post.

Chris

[Guest guest]

For your benefit I must remember to put one line responses at the bottom of

very long posts.

Happy hunting! ;-)

Judith Alta

[Guest guest]

But you do have to read some because this is a plain text list it's hard to

tell when the post ends and the extraneous matter begins.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: ChrisMasterjohn@... [mailto:ChrisMasterjohn@...]

First, you don't have to do any rereading at all. You merely must scroll

for

the space that is taken. But you need only scroll in one direction, whereas

someone who *wants* to be able to read the previous posts need scroll in

multiple directions to do so.

[Guest guest]

Judith-

That depends on back-quoting styles. The way Eudora does it for me is very

readable. The way Suze and some other people do it... well, suffice it to

say that if I ever meet her, I'm going to throttle her. <G>

>But you do have to read some because this is a plain text list it's hard to

>tell when the post ends and the extraneous matter begins.

-

[Guest guest]

>But you do have to read some because this is a plain text list it's hard to

>tell when the post ends and the extraneous matter begins.

>>>>That depends on back-quoting styles. The way Eudora does it for me is

very

readable. The way Suze and some other people do it... well, suffice it to

say that if I ever meet her, I'm going to throttle her. <G>

---->hunh??? now what did *i* do? i post the better way - *below* what i'm

responding to - much like most other folks on this list. and it is ironic

that you're calling me out on my posting style when you and your top posting

brethren make it hard work for the rest of us to respond to you. case in

point, i had to take judith's blurb and paste it separately above yours,

then yours, then my response. had i simply pasted in her and your blurbs as

you had them in your post, then added my response to either the bottom OR

the top, it would've been out of order and confusing to any reader.

i think my posting style is impeachable, impeccable, unthrottle-able. but if

we do meet, i have to warn you i still have my pepper spray gun, so i

*invite* you to try and throttle me. <weg>

p.s. for the record, i actually don't have it any more, but as long as you

*think* i do, then that should suffice as a deterrent. LOL!

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

Actually, if the " Sent " line is left in the old post there is no problem in

telling the order of the posts.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: Suze Fisher [mailto:s.fisher22@...]

Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 8:51 PM

>But you do have to read some because this is a plain text list it's hard to

>tell when the post ends and the extraneous matter begins.

>>>>That depends on back-quoting styles. The way Eudora does it for me is

very

readable. The way Suze and some other people do it... well, suffice it to

say that if I ever meet her, I'm going to throttle her. <G>

---->hunh??? now what did *i* do? i post the better way - *below* what i'm

responding to - much like most other folks on this list. and it is ironic

that you're calling me out on my posting style when you and your top posting

brethren make it hard work for the rest of us to respond to you. case in

point, i had to take judith's blurb and paste it separately above yours,

then yours, then my response. had i simply pasted in her and your blurbs as

you had them in your post, then added my response to either the bottom OR

the top, it would've been out of order and confusing to any reader.

i think my posting style is impeachable, impeccable, unthrottle-able. but if

we do meet, i have to warn you i still have my pepper spray gun, so i

*invite* you to try and throttle me. <weg>

p.s. for the record, i actually don't have it any more, but as long as you

*think* i do, then that should suffice as a deterrent. LOL!

Suze Fisher

[Guest guest]

>>>Actually, if the " Sent " line is left in the old post there is no problem

in

telling the order of the posts.

--->if i took the whole thing and copied and pasted it as it stands in the

post i'm responding to, it *would* be confusing because the responses

wouldn't be in order (see below for a sample of how it looks " as is " ). no

matter where i interject my response it will be out of order and anyone

reading it will have to read carefully to orient themselves as to who wrote

what first and who's responding to whom. it's MUCH simpler to just routinely

post a response below what you're responding to, at least it's easier for

readers. i understand that top posting makes sense in the short term (the

orginal top post) in some instances, but responding to them is annoying

because of having to rearrange the paras. so they're not very efficient in

the long term (anticipating someone else responding to your post).

<<<<<<<<<<< RE: Another vote for top posting

Judith-

That depends on back-quoting styles. The way Eudora does it for me is very

readable. The way Suze and some other people do it... well, suffice it to

say that if I ever meet her, I'm going to throttle her. <G>

>But you do have to read some because this is a plain text list it's hard to

>tell when the post ends and the extraneous matter begins.

- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

As I said earlier. I think we just need to agree to disagree.

You can please most of the people some of the time and some of the people

most of the time. But there is no way you can please all of the people all

of the time.

Enjoy! ;-)

Judith Alta

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>hunh??? now what did *i* do? i post the better way - *below* what i'm

>responding to -

Your backquote character placement makes it very hard to figure out who

said what and where quotes begin and end. Also, there's no consistency,

even inside a single post, to _what_ character sequence you use. I've seen

paragraphs prefaced by various things like this: " -----> " , " ========> " ,

" --> " , " -------- " , and " --------------------------> " . Also, that doesn't

consistently indicate that only the one paragraph with the marking is

backquoted. Sometimes two or more are, and it's often very unclear where

the quoted material ends and your words begin.

>you and your top posting

>brethren make it hard work for the rest of us to respond to you.

I only top post when I'm making a very brief reply to a relatively brief

quoted passage. In those cases I think it costs no extra time or effort to

follow, and it simplifies the task of replying since you only have to

delete from one point on instead of in multiple sections. Though I do let

some top-posted paragraphs run too long from time to time since I have a

very high screen resolution and don't always notice how much extra wrapping

there's going to be in the final formatting, in general I believe it works,

and , the list's most vocal anti-top-posting activist, seems to agree.

-

[Guest guest]

>hunh??? now what did *i* do? i post the better way - *below* what i'm

>responding to -

>>>Your backquote character placement makes it very hard to figure out who

said what and where quotes begin and end. Also, there's no consistency,

even inside a single post, to _what_ character sequence you use. I've seen

paragraphs prefaced by various things like this: " -----> " , " ========> " ,

" --> " , " -------- " , and " --------------------------> " . Also, that doesn't

consistently indicate that only the one paragraph with the marking is

backquoted. Sometimes two or more are, and it's often very unclear where

the quoted material ends and your words begin.

----->hey, thanks for bottom posting! but, i don't understand your complaint

because i always preface what i'm responding to with the same character -

" > " - sometimes 3 or 4 of them ( " >>> " ), and i always preface my response

with the same set of characters " --------> " albeit the arrow is of varying

lenghts. i don't recall ever having used " =======> " nor " ----------- " unless

it was a rare accident. on a rare ocassion i do forget to preface a response

with my signature arrow, but that's not typical. so my posts typically go

like this:

>>>quote i'm responding to...

--------->my response.

my response para 2.

my response para 3.

>>>next quote i'm responding to...

--------->my response.

my response para 2.

what is wrong with that? it's consistent and everything's separated by a

unique character sequence.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

Quoting Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...>:

> >hunh??? now what did *i* do? i post the better way - *below* what i'm

> >responding to -

>

> >>>Your backquote character placement makes it very hard to figure out

> who

> said what and where quotes begin and end...

<snip>

> what is wrong with that? it's consistent and everything's separated by a

> unique character sequence.

Well, for one, I had no idea to whom you were responding. Also, it took me a

while to figure out that the top line was yours.

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

Since the list owner is a top poster, I'm sure it will remain a part of

the list. But I will never be a top poster regardless of what vote

anyone takes.

It has been generally considered on the web that properly trimmed bottom

posts is good Net etiquette normally. Below is some thoughts as to why that

is.

Superhero Bush Rescues Marriage

http://tinyurl.com/yvrn6

############################

Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting

By A. Smit and H.W. de Haan

Definitions:

Top-posting: Writing the message above the original text, when one replies to an

email or a post in a newsgroup.

Bottom-posting: The opposite of top-posting. Now the new message is placed below

the original text.

We are fanatic Usenet-readers. As a result we are often annoyed by people who

keep top-posting.

This is considered as not good 'Net etiquette'. The majority of

Usenet-users prefer bottom-posting.

In addition to bottom-posting, it is customary to leave out non-relevant parts

of the message with regard to the

reply, and to put the reply directly beneath the quoted relevant parts.

If you want to know more about writing new posts. Check out this site:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/documents/quotingguide.html

Below you can find our arguments why bottom-posting is better than top-posting.

Because it is proper Usenet Etiquette. Check out the following URL:

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html .

It is a little outdated but still has a lot of valid points. Let us

quote something from this site:

If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you summarize the

original at

the top of the message, or include just enough text of the original to

give a context. This will make sure readers understand when they start

to read your response. Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by

distributing the postings from one host to another, it is possible to

see a response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context

helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!

<snip>

Top-posting makes posts incomprehensible. Firstly: In normal conversations, one

does not

answer to something that has not yet been said. So it is unclear to

reply to the top, whilst the original message is at the bottom.

Secondly: In western society a book is normally read from top to bottom.

Top-posting forces one to stray from this convention: Reading some at

the top, skipping to the bottom to read the question, and going back to

the top to continue. This annoyance increases even more than linear with

the number of top-posts in the message.

If someone replies to a thread and you forgot what the thread was all

about, or that thread was incomplete for some reasons, it will be quite

tiresome to rapidly understand what the thread was all about, due to bad

posting and irrelevant text which has not been removed.

To prevent hideously long posts with a minimal account of new text, it is good

Usenet practice to remove the non-relevant parts and optionally

summarize the relevant parts of the original post, with regard to one's

reply.

Top-posting inevitably leads to long posts, because most top-posters

leave the original message intact. All these long posts not only clutter

up discussions, but they also clutter up the server space.

Top-posting makes it hard for bottom-posters to reply to the relevant parts:

it not possible to answer within the original message. Bottom-posting

does not make top-posting any harder.

<snip>

A reason given by stubborn top-posters: they don't like to scroll to read the

new message.

We like to disagree here, because we always have to scroll down to see

the original message and after that to scroll back up, just to see to

what they are replying to. As a result you have to scroll twice as much

when reading a top-poster's message.

As a counterargument they say (believe us they do): " You can check the

previous message in the discussion " . This is even more tiresome than

scrolling and with the unreliable nature of Usenet (and even email is

inevitably unreliable), the previous message in the discussion can be

simply unavailable.

Some newsgroups have strict conventions concerning posting in their charter.

As an example we can tell you that in most Dutch newsgroups, you will be

warned, killfiled or maybe even flamed, if you fail to follow Usenet

conventions or if you do not quote according to the quoting guidelines.

In general: it is better to practice the guidelines, if one does not

want to get flamed in a newsgroup one just subscribed to.

We can conclude that there are no good reasons we know of for top-posting.

The most top-posts originate from the minimal work people spend on

making posts. We think that one should be proud of one's post, that is

it contains relevant content, well-formed sentences and no irrelevant

'bullsh*t', before uploading to your newsserver. If the majority of the

group will adhere to this convention, the group will be nicer, tidier

and easier to read.

As a final remark we want to bring non-quoting into mind. This means that the

original content of an email or Usenet post is completely removed. It

makes it very hard for a reader to find out to what and whom one is

replying. This phenomenon can be partly attributed to wrong settings of

news- and email-clients, and partly to people who want to start with

clean replies.

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>what is wrong with that? it's consistent and everything's separated by a

>unique character sequence.

Speaking from a UI perspective, it's less clear than prefacing every

backquoted line in a quote with a character combination like this: " > " for

two reasons I can think of off the top of my head. First, by prefacing

every line with a backquote indicator, it's clear at a glance which parts

of the text are backquotes and which parts are original text. There's less

parsing involved. Second, prefacing every line allows for clear nested

backquoting, whereas your system doesn't.

Here's an example of the second point.

-----

> >I see no reason for their to be specific associations of inspectors for

> the

> >buyer alone. An inspector is an inspector, and would lend his services to

> >whoever would pay for them. Although consumer agencies often have vast

> >amounts of

> >money. Ralph Nader has $4 million dollars in stocks that generate the

> income

> >for his organizations, for example.

>

> You're seriously comparing a few million dollars with billions?

It depends what it's used for. The question isn't " who has more money, " but

rather, whether they organization has sufficient funds to carry out its

purpose.

-----

That's taken from one of Chris' posts. It's clear that there was a

statement, a response, and a response to the response.

Your trial post to (which used stuff like " <BRANDON REPLIED> " )

requires a large amount of work on your part, whereas my system is handled

entirely by Eudora -- or most any other email client.

Oh, here's a third reason that just occurred to me, based on this statement

of yours.

>but, i don't understand your complaint

>because i always preface what i'm responding to with the same character -

> " > " - sometimes 3 or 4 of them ( " >>> " ), and i always preface my response

>with the same set of characters " --------> " albeit the arrow is of varying

>lenghts.

The meaning of the form of backquoting I use is readily evident to anyone

with basic computer communication experience: lines prefaced by " > " (or by

any other character or character combination) are obviously quoted, lines

without preface are new text. Your system requires us to remember a

two-word vocabulary, and because your vocabulary uses two words, we have to

remember which is which, instead of just knowing that whatever word is used

indicates backquoting. If loads of people used the same two-word

vocabulary this problem would diminish or disappear, but a one-word system

accomplishes the same thing more efficiently and easily, so a two-word

system is undesirable.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/20/04 11:58:44 AM Eastern Standard Time,

readnwrite@... writes:

> The argument that the sequence of replies needs to be top to bottom

> ignores the fact that if you are reading the previous emails in the

> thread, you have already read the previous comments.

No, you aren't. does not organize the emails in any sort of logical

order, but rather the order in which they are posted. The only possibile way to

take *partial* advantage of such a system is to read them on the website, but

most people, I think, receive them in email. Even to take partial advantage

by following threads through the links at the bottom of the post is very

laborious and involves a lot of back clicking.

In each thread, there are a variety of subthreads. There may be 10 people

participating in it-- if so, there are multiple posts that could be responded

to, in any order, at one time.

So as you click

> from one email to the next, you ARE reading the conversation in

> sequential order.

No, you clearly aren't, because the emails do not come in order of logical

sequence, they come in order of the time at which they were sent.

If A makes a post, then B makes a post, then someone responds to A's post,

then C makes a post, then D makes a post, then someone responds to C's post,

then to A's post again, then to B's, then to A's again, then to C's, you get an

order that looks like this:

A B A2 C D C2 A3 B2 A4 C3

Whereas an order following logical sequence would look like this:

A A2 A3 A4 B B2 C C2 C3 D

Leaving the previous comments intact BELOW gives the

> reader who hasn't been reading the thread the opportunity to check out

> what the writer is responding to.

How does leaving the comments ABOVE do that less effectively?

And for the reader who HAS been

> reading all the posts, it spares the re-reading and re-re-reading of

> stuff they've already read!

Why is it that you and Judith must " reread " every piece of text that is in

front of you? Why don't you scan it, or simply skip it?

If the person who is bottom-posting is using a remotely sensible format, it

will look something like this:

>>

>>

>> [initial message]

>>

>>

>

>

> [secondary message]

>

>

[NEW TEXT]

The arrows indicate backquoted text, and also indicate which " generation " the

text belongs to. Anyone who is capable of reading is also capable of

distinguishing old from new text, and can quickly skip over the old text without

reading it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>>>>>The meaning of the form of backquoting I use is readily evident to

anyone

with basic computer communication experience: lines prefaced by " > " (or by

any other character or character combination) are obviously quoted, lines

without preface are new text.

--------->yes, this is true, but my email program doesn't automatically

insert them like yours does. it would be just as labor-intensive for me to

manually put a backquote character in front of every line i'm quoting as it

would to put in people's names like i did in the post to brandon. now if my

email program automatically did that we wouldn't be having this

conversation. i've had to find another method of making clear when my own

response begins, hence the arrow.

>>>>>Your system requires us to remember a

two-word vocabulary, and because your vocabulary uses two words, we have to

remember which is which, instead of just knowing that whatever word is used

indicates backquoting. If loads of people used the same two-word

vocabulary this problem would diminish or disappear, but a one-word system

accomplishes the same thing more efficiently and easily, so a two-word

system is undesirable.

----->true, but *you've* read my emails for almost two years with this

system, and with your intelligence, i'm confident you can easily remember

that i always preface my response with an arrow :-)

but seriously, if i could program outlook to put backquoutes in front of

every line i'm responding to, or in some other way set it off from my

response, i'd be happy to. if any outlook users out there have suggestions,

i'm all ears. if it's not possible, then i'm going to stick to my current

system, albeit i'll try to make an even clearer separation between my

response and the quote i'm responding to.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

The argument that the sequence of replies needs to be top to bottom

ignores the fact that if you are reading the previous emails in the

thread, you have already read the previous comments. So as you click

from one email to the next, you ARE reading the conversation in

sequential order. Leaving the previous comments intact BELOW gives the

reader who hasn't been reading the thread the opportunity to check out

what the writer is responding to. And for the reader who HAS been

reading all the posts, it spares the re-reading and re-re-reading of

stuff they've already read!

I admit I'm coming at this as someone who doesn't have the time to

devote to this list that many of you seem to, and so my purpose is to

glean from and give to this list as much as possible with the little

time that I have. My intent is not to be as thorough as many of you

are. I acquiesce that for the purposes many of you are expressing

bottom posting is the best. However, for the purposes that I am on

this list, top posting would serve my needs best. I imagine the

differing purposes for which we are on this list determines more than

anything our preferences for top or bottom posting.

I'm not at all insisting everyone needs to change for me and the

others who prefer top posting. Just thought I'd throw in my two cents

about top posting since so much was being said for bottom posting.

I actually find this whole thread rather funny, as I've never been on

a list before where EVERYTHING and ANYTHING is discussed to the nth

degree!

Have a wonderful day!

Fern

Re: Another vote for top posting

<snip>

> It has been generally considered on the web that properly trimmed

bottom

> posts is good Net etiquette normally. Below is some thoughts as to

why that

> is.

>

<snip>

> ############################

> Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting

> By A. Smit and H.W. de Haan

<snip>

> Top-posting makes posts incomprehensible. Firstly: In normal

conversations, one does not

> answer to something that has not yet been said. So it is unclear to

> reply to the top, whilst the original message is at the bottom.

>

> Secondly: In western society a book is normally read from top to

bottom.

> Top-posting forces one to stray from this convention: Reading some

at

> the top, skipping to the bottom to read the question, and going back

to

> the top to continue. This annoyance increases even more than linear

with

> the number of top-posts in the message.

<snip>

> A reason given by stubborn top-posters: they don't like to scroll to

read the new message.

> We like to disagree here, because we always have to scroll down to

see

> the original message and after that to scroll back up, just to see

to

> what they are replying to. As a result you have to scroll twice as

much

> when reading a top-poster's message.

[Guest guest]

>>>>I actually find this whole thread rather funny, as I've never been on

a list before where EVERYTHING and ANYTHING is discussed to the nth

degree!

---->haha...so true! i was thinking the same thing yesterday, even though

i'm involved in it. but i doubt there is any list out there like this on

many fronts. <bg>

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

Fern,

Well said!

I prefer to top post in most cases for this very

reason.

When I bottom post it is usually in relation to a

single question with a quick answer.

Jo

--- Fern <readnwrite@...> wrote: > The argument

that the sequence of replies needs to

> be top to bottom

> ignores the fact that if you are reading the

> previous emails in the

> thread, you have already read the previous comments.

> So as you click

> from one email to the next, you ARE reading the

> conversation in

> sequential order. Leaving the previous comments

>

________________________________________________________________________

Messenger - Communicate instantly... " Ping "

your friends today! Download Messenger Now

http://uk.messenger./download/index.html

[Guest guest]

<Old Message> but seriously, if i could program outlook to put

<Old Message> backquoutes in front of

<Old Message> every line i'm responding to, or in some other

<Old Message> way set it off from my

<Old Message> response, i'd be happy to. if any outlook users

<Old Message> out there have suggestions,

<Old Message> i'm all ears. if it's not possible, then i'm

<Old Message> going to stick to my current

<Old Message> system, albeit i'll try to make an even clearer

<Old Message> separation between my

<Old Message> response and the quote i'm responding to.

<Old Message> Suze Fisher

Hi Suze,

I am an Outlook user and as you can see you can indeed " program " (actually

no programming involved just a few setting changes) Outlook to put most

anything in front of the message you are replying to.

There are a couple of caveats:

You need to be getting the messages in plain text not HTML (in HTML the only

character will be a vertical line).

In plain text you can use any characters you want up to a limit of 22

characters, you can also use spaces as I did above.

To change this setting go to TOOLS then OPTIONS then click the PREFERENCES

tab. On that tab screen hit the EMail Options button. About half way down

there is a drop down list labeled " When replying to a message " choose the

last option on the drop down message that says " Prefix each line of the

original message " . Then under the drop down list for forwarding messages

there is a box labeled " Prefix each line with: " and that is where you type

whatever characters (up to 22) that you want old messages prefixed with.

Hope this helps in this fascinating debate which I have NO idea why I'm

following, just this perverse interest in seeing how long this debate can go

on, and I never watch those reality TV shows but here I am following Reality

Email <big grin>

--

P.S. Please know one yell at me because I didn't top post or I bottom posted

but did something else wrong, I couldn't handle the rejection