Proper posting

Hey guys,
I have an old, OLD, question about proper posting in newsgroups.
I always thought, that when you respond to a question or a thread, your
response should on the top, and not the bottom. If the reader is not aware
of the thread, then they can scroll down and read it first then go to the
top and read the newest response, because most of us, for the most part,
follow the thread we like pretty much all the way. I, for one, follow that
rule and post on the top. But I noticed that others post on the bottom of
the thread. What is your take on this?

--
AZ

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:34:20 -0500, "AZ" <azikra@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>Hey guys,
>I have an old, OLD, question about proper posting in newsgroups.
>I always thought, that when you respond to a question or a thread, your
>response should on the top, and not the bottom. If the reader is not aware
>of the thread, then they can scroll down and read it first then go to the
>top and read the newest response, because most of us, for the most part,
>follow the thread we like pretty much all the way. I, for one, follow that
>rule and post on the top. But I noticed that others post on the bottom of
>the thread. What is your take on this?

Depends on the post. When you ask a question as you have I like to
answer right after the question. If I'm not being specific to the
original post that I'm replying to then I post on top. Of I post in
the middle if I responding to something, well, in the middle. I also
delete stuff that isn't relevant to my post.
People get pretty exercised about this issue. I don't really care but
I do find it difficult to follow threads where everyone has top
posted. I'm not gonna bitch about it, though.
Sue
One year, three months, three weeks, two days, 8 hours, 43 minutes and
57 seconds. 15851 cigarettes not smoked, saving $2,639.36. Life saved:
7 weeks, 6 days, 55 minutes.

I go both ways (this makes me bi?).

Short quotes tend to get bottom posted. Long quotes tend to be top
posted. If the thread title is clear, and it's to its statement that
I'm responding to, it's top posted. If it's an argument it gets bottom
posted. SHOUTING WITH ALL CAPS GETS TOP POSTED (I've already pissed
you off, so why not top post?). If I'm pissed, top post. If I'm drunk,
bottom post, since I have to re-read the original post like 6 times to
get it right. If in a hurry, top. When someone is making a gazillion
different points, mid post. In a silly mood I top, mid and bottom post
at the same time.

Then again, I flip flop the whole top/bottom thing all the time.
Really pisses some people off to no end. So, whether you top, mid or
bottom post it's all about annoying as many people as you can. If
you're not as rude as me, always bottom post - that's the *rule*.

Gary W.
--

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:34:20 -0500, "AZ" <azikra@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>Hey guys,
>I have an old, OLD, question about proper posting in newsgroups.
>I always thought, that when you respond to a question or a thread, your
>response should on the top, and not the bottom. If the reader is not aware
>of the thread, then they can scroll down and read it first then go to the
>top and read the newest response, because most of us, for the most part,
>follow the thread we like pretty much all the way. I, for one, follow that
>rule and post on the top. But I noticed that others post on the bottom of
>the thread. What is your take on this?

"AZ" <azikra@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>I, for one, follow that
>rule and post on the top. But I noticed that others post on the bottom of
>the thread. What is your take on this?

It is more important to snip the message your respond to than whether
you top or bottom post. If someone quotes a 200 lines long post in
it's entirety just to say "me too", I prefer that he then top posts.
The ideal thing of course would be snipping but only some people care
about netiquette.

Usenet etiquette requires bottom posting, but times change.

--
Tihomir
*I don't smoke anymore*

Hi! I'm bored, heavily armed, and have a Bible.

Proper posting? waszat?

:-)

Me? I do what ever I darn well please atm. think I should work on that?

nah

Ripley

"AZ" <azikra@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
newsh4mi.34898$19.5323@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> Hey guys,
> I have an old, OLD, question about proper posting in newsgroups.
> I always thought, that when you respond to a question or a thread, your response should on
> the top, and not the bottom. If the reader is not aware of the thread, then they can scroll
> down and read it first then go to the top and read the newest response, because most of us,
> for the most part, follow the thread we like pretty much all the way. I, for one, follow
> that rule and post on the top. But I noticed that others post on the bottom of the thread.
> What is your take on this?
>
> --
> AZ
>

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:34:20 -0500, "AZ" <azikra@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> I, for one, follow that
>rule and post on the top. But I noticed that others post on the bottom of
>the thread. What is your take on this?

I usually bottom post, but I also always try to trim the previous
post(s) so I'm not scrolling through stuff that's been reposted too
many times.

--
BessieBee

"OK, so what's the speed of dark?"
Steven Wright

i choose to top post, so folks don't have to scroll all the way down, for
just one of my encouraging; CONGRATS!



"AZ" <azikra@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
newsh4mi.34898$19.5323@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> Hey guys,
> I have an old, OLD, question about proper posting in newsgroups.
> I always thought, that when you respond to a question or a thread, your
> response should on the top, and not the bottom. If the reader is not
> aware of the thread, then they can scroll down and read it first then go
> to the top and read the newest response, because most of us, for the most
> part, follow the thread we like pretty much all the way. I, for one,
> follow that rule and post on the top. But I noticed that others post on
> the bottom of the thread. What is your take on this?
>
> --
> AZ
>

Sometimes I like being on top...

"AZ" <azikra@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
newsh4mi.34898$19.5323@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> Hey guys,
> I have an old, OLD, question about proper posting in newsgroups.
> I always thought, that when you respond to a question or a thread, your
> response should on the top, and not the bottom. If the reader is not
> aware of the thread, then they can scroll down and read it first then go
> to the top and read the newest response, because most of us, for the most
> part, follow the thread we like pretty much all the way. I, for one,
> follow that rule and post on the top. But I noticed that others post on
> the bottom of the thread. What is your take on this?
>
> --
> AZ
>

Sometimes I like being on the bottom.

GregB
7 years + some
--
Epitaph - I'll try harder next time.

AZ, I am glad you asked that question. As you can see here, I
usually delete the entire post and just write my reply. I find it
annoying to have to look through a response to find what was actually
added to the posting, and especially where someone responses paragraph
by paragraph. It just gets way too confusing to my addled brain.
Just my $.02 opinion...

I do have to admit this thread did finally 'splain to me what folks
were meaning about top/bottom postings...LOL

FlatironMike
FSS
Five months, three days, 14 hours, 11 minutes and 54 seconds. 3071
cigarettes not smoked, saving $921.30. Life saved: 1 week, 3 days, 15
hours, 55 minutes.

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 09:42:56 -0700, FlatIronMike
<FlatironMikeNYC@gmail.com> wrote:

>AZ, I am glad you asked that question. As you can see here, I
>usually delete the entire post and just write my reply.

You do??? I thought it was your news reader that did that.
Sue

Ripley wondered:
> Proper posting? waszat?

Is this an "on top" or "on the bottom" discussion? That might help
with the jump start my lack of vivid sexual dreams on the patch.
Thanks, guys.

Bottom for me,
Rob

P.S. To answer the original question...like most people said, it all
depends. I usually don't even include the original post unless I'm
responding to a particular part of it.

"Billy Bob F." <billybobf@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184435715.867862.58440@w3g2000hsg.googlegrou ps.com...
> Ripley wondered:
>> Proper posting? waszat?
>
> Is this an "on top" or "on the bottom" discussion? That might help
> with the jump start my lack of vivid sexual dreams on the patch.
> Thanks, guys.
>
> Bottom for me,
> Rob

LOL! Have you hit the libido phase ALREADY, Rob??? :-)

Sally
>
> P.S. To answer the original question...like most people said, it all
> depends. I usually don't even include the original post unless I'm
> responding to a particular part of it.
>

You see, Here is where I disagree with you. If someone just read your post,
they will have no idea what we're talking about. And if that was the case,
I want to know where the hell were they, and why did they not read the
entire thread?

--
AZ
"FlatIronMike" <FlatironMikeNYC@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184431376.212740.222550@n60g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
> AZ, I am glad you asked that question. As you can see here, I
> usually delete the entire post and just write my reply. I find it
> annoying to have to look through a response to find what was actually
> added to the posting, and especially where someone responses paragraph
> by paragraph. It just gets way too confusing to my addled brain.
> Just my $.02 opinion...
>
> I do have to admit this thread did finally 'splain to me what folks
> were meaning about top/bottom postings...LOL
>
> FlatironMike
> FSS
> Five months, three days, 14 hours, 11 minutes and 54 seconds. 3071
> cigarettes not smoked, saving $921.30. Life saved: 1 week, 3 days, 15
> hours, 55 minutes.
>

My take on this is that it is one of those classic USENET arguments upon
which much needless energy has been wasted.

I personally agree with you. I hate scrolling through a lot of already-read
territory to read a one-sentence reply. Others want to do that because they
feel it preserves context better. My feeling is that the context is in the
previous posts which are always available to be reviewed, anyway, if I have
forgotten the details of the thread..

There will never be a commonly agreed-upon convention, however. For me it
is not an important enough issue to expend hours of emotional energy on, but
many people feel otherwise, and many a huge flame fest has been kindled by
this exact question!

hugs to you (however you choose to post),

elle


"AZ" <azikra@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
newsh4mi.34898$19.5323@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> Hey guys,
> I have an old, OLD, question about proper posting in newsgroups.
> I always thought, that when you respond to a question or a thread, your
> response should on the top, and not the bottom. If the reader is not
> aware of the thread, then they can scroll down and read it first then go
> to the top and read the newest response, because most of us, for the most
> part, follow the thread we like pretty much all the way. I, for one,
> follow that rule and post on the top. But I noticed that others post on
> the bottom of the thread. What is your take on this?
>
> --
> AZ
>

"AZ" wrote
> ... I, for one, follow that rule and post on the top. But I noticed that
> others post on the bottom of the thread. What is your take on this?

Different strokes, eh?-- and sometimes a lot of heat and flak is generated
over it.
I usually bottom post, and I usually trim the message I'm replying to to
include just the salient points, and to conserve space-- especially if it's
a wordy post I'm replying to, or a long thread where many others have
replied already.

This post, for instance, is a perfect example of what I mean.
It just seems... more logical to me that way.
First: Here's the message or question I'm replying to; secondly, here's my
response. Simple, no?

When I first came to newsgroups and was unaware of protocol and convention,
I recall reading a similar thread in which preference for the bottom-post
method seemed to hold sway.
Someone made a reference to "...you top-posting fuckwits..." that always
stuck with me.

What bothers me most isn't top or bottom posting, but someone who posts a
message and includes *NONE* of the post they're replying to-- especially
when it's not obvious what they're referencing-- so you sort of have to
guess what the hell they're talking about.

" Jef." wrote in message

> What bothers me most isn't top or bottom posting, but someone who posts a
> message and includes *NONE* of the post they're replying to-- >

Ooops!

jacks, ;>)

I guess until we have a Miss Manners for Usenet, there will never be
any consensus on this or any other topic. Each of us have our own
style of replying to a post, but as long as we are replying, it's a
good thing...[thank you MS].

FlatironMike
FSS
Five months, four days, 14 hours, 7 minutes and 49 seconds. 3091
cigarettes not smoked, saving $927.28. Life saved: 1 week, 3 days, 17
hours, 35 minutes.

This is the age old qestion isn't it and everyone has their own ideas on the
matter. I love top posters and am one but.


"AZ" <azikra@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
newsh4mi.34898$19.5323@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> Hey guys,
> I have an old, OLD, question about proper posting in newsgroups.
> I always thought, that when you respond to a question or a thread, your
> response should on the top, and not the bottom.


I have been known to sneak it in the middle if I feel naughty, or even..


> If the reader is not aware of the thread, then they can scroll down and
> read it first then go to the top and read the newest response, because
> most of us, for the most part, follow the thread we like pretty much all
> the way. I, for one, follow that rule and post on the top. But I noticed
> that others post on the bottom of the thread. What is your take on this?
>
> --
> AZ


On the bottom.
what what gets my knickers in a bunch is scrolling through a huge page of
friendly banter to see a haha on the bottom. grrrr

Lynn VOF Leaper

LOL!! This old chesnut?? I don't think there is actually a right or wrong
answer to this one. Personally, I much prefer to be on top.

--
Lots of love
Summer (007) -- HOF
_________________________________________________

e-Mail: summer DOT cashmore AT ntlworld DOT com
http://www.summcash.blogspot.com/
"When I found the skull in the woods, the first thing I did was call
the police. But then I got curious about it. I picked it up, and
started wondering who this person was, and why he had deer horns."
-- Jack Handy
_________________________________________________


"AZ" <azikra@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
newsh4mi.34898$19.5323@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> Hey guys,
> I have an old, OLD, question about proper posting in newsgroups.
> I always thought, that when you respond to a question or a thread, your
> response should on the top, and not the bottom. If the reader is not
aware
> of the thread, then they can scroll down and read it first then go to the
> top and read the newest response, because most of us, for the most part,
> follow the thread we like pretty much all the way. I, for one, follow
that
> rule and post on the top. But I noticed that others post on the bottom of
> the thread. What is your take on this?
>
> --
> AZ
>
>

Another note. Why do news readers have all that >>> mess at the first of
every line? Guess it must be a sighted thing.

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, Sue wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:34:20 -0500, "AZ" <azikra@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> Hey guys,
>> I have an old, OLD, question about proper posting in newsgroups.
>> I always thought, that when you respond to a question or a thread, your
>> response should on the top, and not the bottom. If the reader is not aware
>> of the thread, then they can scroll down and read it first then go to the
>> top and read the newest response, because most of us, for the most part,
>> follow the thread we like pretty much all the way. I, for one, follow that
>> rule and post on the top. But I noticed that others post on the bottom of
>> the thread. What is your take on this?
>
> Depends on the post. When you ask a question as you have I like to
> answer right after the question. If I'm not being specific to the
> original post that I'm replying to then I post on top. Of I post in
> the middle if I responding to something, well, in the middle. I also
> delete stuff that isn't relevant to my post.
> People get pretty exercised about this issue. I don't really care but
> I do find it difficult to follow threads where everyone has top
> posted. I'm not gonna bitch about it, though.
> Sue
> One year, three months, three weeks, two days, 8 hours, 43 minutes and
> 57 seconds. 15851 cigarettes not smoked, saving $2,639.36. Life saved:
> 7 weeks, 6 days, 55 minutes.
>
>

You are exactly right AZ. I have been bitching about this for years. If
you are blind, and you have to listen to what everyone else wrote just to
get to new part of the thread is verry hard to listen to all that. I can
do it, but I have to use the down arrow keys and the page down keys to get
to the bottom of the message, or should I say each post. Maybe if we bitch
enough, people will change the way they post. All I hear is "So and So
wrote" When I hit reply, I am typing at the top of each post in my news
reader. I guess the defaut is set to post the message at the bottom in
outhouse destress, I don't know?
PHONE: 770-229-4240

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, AZ wrote:

> Hey guys,
> I have an old, OLD, question about proper posting in newsgroups.
> I always thought, that when you respond to a question or a thread, your
> response should on the top, and not the bottom. If the reader is not aware
> of the thread, then they can scroll down and read it first then go to the
> top and read the newest response, because most of us, for the most part,
> follow the thread we like pretty much all the way. I, for one, follow that
> rule and post on the top. But I noticed that others post on the bottom of
> the thread. What is your take on this?
>
> --
> AZ
>
>
>

Yes, I think for the sighted it serves to identify different replies. The
more distant posts have more of the > characters in front of each line,
whereas the recent ones have fewer, so it helps us to tell the order in
which things have been posted.

I'm sorry that it causes problems for you. You would think there would be a
way to turn that off in your newsreader.

hugs,

elle

"Dana" <dana@panix.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.64.0707200139430.11686@panix2.pani x.com...
> Another note. Why do news readers have all that >>> mess at the first of
> every line? Guess it must be a sighted thing.

Now, that is the way to post.

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, Ripley wrote:

> Proper posting? waszat?
>
> :-)
>
> Me? I do what ever I darn well please atm. think I should work on that?
>
> nah
>
> Ripley
>
> "AZ" <azikra@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> newsh4mi.34898$19.5323@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>> Hey guys,
>> I have an old, OLD, question about proper posting in newsgroups.
>> I always thought, that when you respond to a question or a thread, your response should on
>> the top, and not the bottom. If the reader is not aware of the thread, then they can scroll
>> down and read it first then go to the top and read the newest response, because most of us,
>> for the most part, follow the thread we like pretty much all the way. I, for one, follow
>> that rule and post on the top. But I noticed that others post on the bottom of the thread.
>> What is your take on this?
>>
>> --
>> AZ
>>
>
>
>

That does help some, but wish you'all would post at the top so I don't
have to hear what everyone typed over and over again.
PHONE: 770-229-4240

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, BessieBee wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:34:20 -0500, "AZ" <azikra@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> I, for one, follow that
>> rule and post on the top. But I noticed that others post on the bottom of
>> the thread. What is your take on this?
>
> I usually bottom post, but I also always try to trim the previous
> post(s) so I'm not scrolling through stuff that's been reposted too
> many times.
>
> --
> BessieBee
>
> "OK, so what's the speed of dark?"
> Steven Wright
>

I hear ya. Sometimes I do the same thing. I have a hard time editing with
this stupid screen read software. They charge $800 just for the software
and the stupid thing sometimes will lock up the computer.
PHONE: 770-229-4240
http://www.randomc.com/~dana

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, FlatIronMike wrote:

> AZ, I am glad you asked that question. As you can see here, I
> usually delete the entire post and just write my reply. I find it
> annoying to have to look through a response to find what was actually
> added to the posting, and especially where someone responses paragraph
> by paragraph. It just gets way too confusing to my addled brain.
> Just my $.02 opinion...
>
> I do have to admit this thread did finally 'splain to me what folks
> were meaning about top/bottom postings...LOL
>
> FlatironMike
> FSS
> Five months, three days, 14 hours, 11 minutes and 54 seconds. 3071
> cigarettes not smoked, saving $921.30. Life saved: 1 week, 3 days, 15
> hours, 55 minutes.
>
>

Way to go!! Now that is the way to post, and I had no problems listening
to your post.
PHONE: 770-229-4240

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, readandpostrosie wrote:

> i choose to top post, so folks don't have to scroll all the way down, for
> just one of my encouraging; CONGRATS!
>
>
>
> "AZ" <azikra@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> newsh4mi.34898$19.5323@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>> Hey guys,
>> I have an old, OLD, question about proper posting in newsgroups.
>> I always thought, that when you respond to a question or a thread, your
>> response should on the top, and not the bottom. If the reader is not
>> aware of the thread, then they can scroll down and read it first then go
>> to the top and read the newest response, because most of us, for the most
>> part, follow the thread we like pretty much all the way. I, for one,
>> follow that rule and post on the top. But I noticed that others post on
>> the bottom of the thread. What is your take on this?
>>
>> --
>> AZ
>>
>
>
>

I will try to be a top poster for you Dana, but I can't make any promises.
I will try though. I wonder how your reader used to handle posts from
jsteam who is somewhat challenged in the spelling department (sorry john,
since I know you can't even defend yourself, I love you!!). Dana, you are
an amazing man, I didn't realize that you were blind for the longest time,
until I was poking around your website. One of these days I will surprise
you with a voice call, and you can laugh at my Canadian accent!

hugs

Sarah of Sarah and Steve
"Dana" <dana@panix.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.64.0707200133450.11686@panix2.pani x.com...
: You are exactly right AZ. I have been bitching about this for years. If
: you are blind, and you have to listen to what everyone else wrote just to
: get to new part of the thread is verry hard to listen to all that. I can
: do it, but I have to use the down arrow keys and the page down keys to get
: to the bottom of the message, or should I say each post. Maybe if we bitch
: enough, people will change the way they post. All I hear is "So and So
: wrote" When I hit reply, I am typing at the top of each post in my news
: reader. I guess the defaut is set to post the message at the bottom in
: outhouse destress, I don't know?
: PHONE: 770-229-4240
:
: On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, AZ wrote:
:
: > Hey guys,
: > I have an old, OLD, question about proper posting in newsgroups.
: > I always thought, that when you respond to a question or a thread, your
: > response should on the top, and not the bottom. If the reader is not
aware
: > of the thread, then they can scroll down and read it first then go to
the
: > top and read the newest response, because most of us, for the most part,
: > follow the thread we like pretty much all the way. I, for one, follow
that
: > rule and post on the top. But I noticed that others post on the bottom
of
: > the thread. What is your take on this?
: >
: > --
: > AZ
: >
: >
: >

Dana <dana@panix.com> wrote:

>Another note. Why do news readers have all that >>> mess at the first of
>every line? Guess it must be a sighted thing.

It's called quoting, and is very useful. My usenet program, Agent, can
paint quoted text in a different colour than the main text so it is
easier to navigate visually.

Have a look http://www.inet.hr/~tgrebena/agent.gif
All the colours are customisable of course.

Here is some additional info for those interested.
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html

--
Tihomir
*I don't smoke anymore*

.... Behind every successful man is an astonished mother-in-law.

Well, now you have me feeling guilty!!
Sue who posts all over the place - top, bottom, middle.

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 01:52:40 -0400, Dana <dana@panix.com> wrote:

>That does help some, but wish you'all would post at the top so I don't
>have to hear what everyone typed over and over again.
>PHONE: 770-229-4240
>
>On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, BessieBee wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:34:20 -0500, "AZ" <azikra@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I, for one, follow that
>>> rule and post on the top. But I noticed that others post on the bottom of
>>> the thread. What is your take on this?
>>
>> I usually bottom post, but I also always try to trim the previous
>> post(s) so I'm not scrolling through stuff that's been reposted too
>> many times.
>>
>> --
>> BessieBee
>>
>> "OK, so what's the speed of dark?"
>> Steven Wright
>>

I can understand how frustrating it must be for you to have to listen
to all the previous stuff, but how can you remember what is being
replied to?
I have tremendous admiration for you in your ability to operate a
computer at all.
Sue

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 01:38:41 -0400, Dana <dana@panix.com> wrote:

>You are exactly right AZ. I have been bitching about this for years. If
>you are blind, and you have to listen to what everyone else wrote just to
>get to new part of the thread is verry hard to listen to all that. I can
>do it, but I have to use the down arrow keys and the page down keys to get
>to the bottom of the message, or should I say each post. Maybe if we bitch
>enough, people will change the way they post. All I hear is "So and So
>wrote" When I hit reply, I am typing at the top of each post in my news
>reader. I guess the defaut is set to post the message at the bottom in
>outhouse destress, I don't know?
>PHONE: 770-229-4240
>
>On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, AZ wrote:
>
>> Hey guys,
>> I have an old, OLD, question about proper posting in newsgroups.
>> I always thought, that when you respond to a question or a thread, your
>> response should on the top, and not the bottom. If the reader is not aware
>> of the thread, then they can scroll down and read it first then go to the
>> top and read the newest response, because most of us, for the most part,
>> follow the thread we like pretty much all the way. I, for one, follow that
>> rule and post on the top. But I noticed that others post on the bottom of
>> the thread. What is your take on this?
>>
>> --
>> AZ
>>
>>
>>

dana,
i have posted on the top for many years, and usually i get a "wiseguy" who
yells about it.
i guess top posting is not the PROPER way to do it.

TOUGH SHIT!








"Dana" <dana@panix.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.64.0707200133450.11686@panix2.pani x.com...
> You are exactly right AZ. I have been bitching about this for years. If
> you are blind, and you have to listen to what everyone else wrote just to
> get to new part of the thread is verry hard to listen to all that. I can
> do it, but I have to use the down arrow keys and the page down keys to get
> to the bottom of the message, or should I say each post. Maybe if we bitch
> enough, people will change the way they post. All I hear is "So and So
> wrote" When I hit reply, I am typing at the top of each post in my news
> reader. I guess the defaut is set to post the message at the bottom in
> outhouse destress, I don't know?
> PHONE: 770-229-4240
>
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, AZ wrote:
>
>> Hey guys,
>> I have an old, OLD, question about proper posting in newsgroups.
>> I always thought, that when you respond to a question or a thread, your
>> response should on the top, and not the bottom. If the reader is not
>> aware
>> of the thread, then they can scroll down and read it first then go to the
>> top and read the newest response, because most of us, for the most part,
>> follow the thread we like pretty much all the way. I, for one, follow
>> that
>> rule and post on the top. But I noticed that others post on the bottom
>> of
>> the thread. What is your take on this?
>>
>> --
>> AZ
>>
>>
>>

I felt bad too and have now turned into a top poster! How are you
feeling Sue? Better I hope.

Love you Sue!

Sarah and Steve
"Sue" <sebrady@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:rkh1a3d5e5arsk9prondlmr7idp9nci42m@4ax.com...
: Well, now you have me feeling guilty!!
: Sue who posts all over the place - top, bottom, middle.
:
: On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 01:52:40 -0400, Dana <dana@panix.com> wrote:
:
: >That does help some, but wish you'all would post at the top so I don't
: >have to hear what everyone typed over and over again.
: >PHONE: 770-229-4240
: >
: >On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, BessieBee wrote:
: >
: >> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:34:20 -0500, "AZ" <azikra@bellsouth.net> wrote:
: >>
: >>> I, for one, follow that
: >>> rule and post on the top. But I noticed that others post on the
bottom of
: >>> the thread. What is your take on this?
: >>
: >> I usually bottom post, but I also always try to trim the previous
: >> post(s) so I'm not scrolling through stuff that's been reposted too
: >> many times.
: >>
: >> --
: >> BessieBee
: >>
: >> "OK, so what's the speed of dark?"
: >> Steven Wright
: >>

Dana, the gif Tihomir posted shows how instead of every line
starting with a > his news reader uses colors like he describes
in the text. His quoted text is in blue.

Hope you're doing good Dana,
Robin.


"Tihomir" <> wrote ...
>
> It's called quoting, and is very useful. My usenet program, Agent, can
> paint quoted text in a different colour than the main text so it is
> easier to navigate visually.
>
> Have a look http://www.inet.hr/~tgrebena/agent.gif
> All the colours are customisable of course.
>

Just curious, Dana-- is color even a factor in your thoughts or mental
imagery? Do you have any experience or memory of color, or were you blind
from birth? There is so much to consider about blindness that we sighted
folks never think about. I always bottom-post. Until you explained the
difficulty it presents for you I had no idea it would matter. Just for you I
will-- from now on-- top post when replying to you or sending you a message.
Thanks for opening my eyes to that.
Jef.

"DutchVanAfoort" wrote
> Dana, the gif Tihomir posted shows how instead of every line
> starting with a > his news reader uses colors like he describes
> in the text. His quoted text is in blue.

Dana, What newsreader do you use? Does it read every word and
punctuation mark from the top down? Would it be helpful to you if
posters typed something like *end of post* so you could stop before
having to hear the previously posted stuff?

*end of this post*

>That does help some, but wish you'all would post at the top so I don't
>have to hear what everyone typed over and over again.
>PHONE: 770-229-4240
--
BessieBee

"OK, so what's the speed of dark?"
Steven Wright

Oh Dana, I'm so sorry, I did not even realise :-(



"DutchVanAfoort" <zniborz@fakeAddy.con> wrote:

>Dana, the gif Tihomir posted shows how instead of every line
>starting with a > his news reader uses colors like he describes
>in the text. His quoted text is in blue.

--
Tihomir
*I don't smoke anymore*

.... And now here's something we hope you'll really like

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:05:06 -0600, "Steve and Sarah"
<sandskrieger@NOSPAM.yourlink.ca> wrote:

>I felt bad too and have now turned into a top poster! How are you
>feeling Sue? Better I hope.

Now, see. I can't top post this because I'm answering your question.
I can't answer before you've asked, can I? Anyway, I'm much better.
Just a vestige of the cold. Now, were I still a smoker I'd probably
be coughing my guts out about now. This cold never even went to my
chest.

>
>Love you Sue!

Love you, too, Sweet Pea. Say, how was that trip to the lake? Did
you have to come home early this time due to poor planning? Ahem.
Sue
One year, three months, four weeks, one day, 20 hours, 12 minutes and
41 seconds. 16065 cigarettes not smoked, saving $2,674.95. Life saved:
7 weeks, 6 days, 18 hours, 45 minutes.