<teddysnips (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote

PUH-LEASE!, let's not start this religious argument all over again! This
has been hashed, over and over again in many newsgroups, and has led to
dozens and dozens of wasted time, bandwidth, and historical storage of
posts both pro and con and never a rock solid resolution. Kind of like THIS
thread? :-)

Rule of thumb, spend some time in whatever ng, and get a feel for the
preferences, then post accordingly. BUT, you'll NEVER make anyone happy, or
avoid this kind of BS.

Ruben

Tim Marshall wrote:
[...] Edward, you've been on this newsgroup, how long?

The earliest post I could find under this monicker was Feb 21 2003, so
a little over two years. I've posted here before that under different
accounts, but I can't really be arsed to find a citation.

Not me. I'm demanding nothing. Have you read the whole thread? To
recap, Mike Olson comes on and advertises his wares. Free, but what
are you going to do? Well, what I did, which was to mention that CDMA
doesn't allow advertising. So Chuck gets on my case (quite rightly)
about quoting the whole message, giving the OP even more free
publicity. So I rejoined, in a very light-hearted manner, giving Chuck
some gyp about top-posting. Then Terry gets all antsy about my
response, so I give chase. Then you weigh in with your two pennorth.
Or cents.

I'm cool with top-posting, though, like you, I prefer bottom-posting
(vide supra). I wasn't actually getting out of my pram about it, I was
just playing with Chuck. It all seems to be in danger of getting a bit
aerated.

Top post shmop post. As long as the info's accurate who cares?

Edward

Impresses the hell out of me.

"The earliest post I could find under this monicker was Feb 21 2003
....."

Impresses the hell out of me.

"Ruben Baumann" <rynt (AT) yahoo9 (DOT) com> wrote in
news:3MWdnbi8Ra5KoC3fRVn-ug (AT) megapath (DOT) net:

Well, I think that's not really correct.

The way to keep everyone happy is to not post in a way that trips
the annoyance triggers of the people devoted to either of the two
alternatives:

1. top posters hate having to scroll past a whole boatload of text
to get to the actual response, so they post at the top.

2. bottom posters hate having the response at the top followed by a
boatload of text at the bottom, that they have to skim through to
figure out what the hell the top poster is talking about.

Note that there's a common trigger to the annoyance: the boatload of
quoted text.

Top posters won't mind a bottom post if the quote text is suitably
trimmed so they don't have to be inconvenienced by reading it or
scrolling past it.

Bottom posters won't mind a top post if the quoted text is succinct
and well-chosen and easily scanned to give the top reply context.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

Well an uninformed lie will always do in place of the facts for some people.

Oh and BTW, I've "got it" for the last 25 or so years on usenet/janet etc,
have you got it that it's a pointless and silly waste of resource in a
technical group yet ?


--
Terry Kreft
MVP Microsoft Access


<teddysnips (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote

David W. Fenton wrote:
[...]
Hard to disagree with that.

Edward

Terry Kreft wrote:
What uninformed lie are you referring to, Terry?

So why do you persist in wasting resources?

Edward

I find I am in agreement with Lyle on the subject of top versus bottom
posting.

I find I am in agreement with Lyle on the subject of bottom versus top
posting.