In message <wgYGk.4136$j...@newsfe10.iad>, Brad Velander 
<b...@SpamThis.com> writes
>Chuck,
>    Where is the relevance of your references? Who created and voted on
>those references?

It was the consensus of those who started the NG's  Some 20 years ago.

>    Heaven forbid you would ever subscribe to some of the groups I monitor,
>horrors..., they post using unicode in foreign languages.

If that is what the group agreed than that is fine.

Every now and again we get people who join a particular NG and than want 
to  ignore the conventions of that group. It is just plain rudeness.

The trouble is when the4 net started there was an entry qualification* 
nor they let in anyone  and the level of discourse in some groups is 
akin to a kindergarten.


*At one time you had to be at least an under grad in a 
scientific/computing discipline or at a government (or other) research 
site to even know the Internet existed.  Now any boorish idiot can get 
on .


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Brad Velander wrote:
> 
... snip ...
> 
> Let me ask, do you bottom post your emails? Now I don't know how
> you will answer but I have never seen anybody bottom post an
> email. Why not if you think it is so important to forum posts,
> what's the difference?

The answer is 'yes'.  I like to keep the correspondence
understandable, and properly snipped.

-- 
 [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) 
 [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>;
            Try the download section.

rickman wrote:
> 
... snip ...
> 
> This is exactly why I stopped worrying about whether everyone top
> posts and trims or not.  The incessant reminders have the
> potential of turning every thread into an argument over religious
> beliefs on top/ bottom posting.
> 
> CBF, I have to ask, is it really helping?

I believe so.  I think that newsgroups where I have made noises are
generally in better shape than a random group.  Part of the problem
is new users, who just don't know any better.  Another part is
silly systems than encourage top-posting.

-- 
 [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) 
 [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>;
            Try the download section.

Well Chuck,
    You're the first I have ever heard of bottom posting emails. Inter-mixed 
quite possibly and I do it myself for certian types of emails/content. But I 
certainly don't need to read the original posts over and over again with 
every reply before I reach the new original thoughts of the current poster. 
But the post initiating my response is there like a footnote or appendix if 
anybody needs such reference/memory assistance.

And I despise bottom posts because I don't want to search for their new 
original thoughts/comments through the prior comments and thoughts that I 
have already read, possibly several times. However, Usenet saw fit to make 
most forums unmoderated and without such silly rules so it is not my spot to 
critique others unless they are breaking a definite rule or actually being 
rude and obnoxious, not simply because I don't personally like their posting 
format.

-- 
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.

"CBFalconer" <c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:4...@yahoo.com...
> Brad Velander wrote:
>>
> ... snip ...
>>
>> Let me ask, do you bottom post your emails? Now I don't know how
>> you will answer but I have never seen anybody bottom post an
>> email. Why not if you think it is so important to forum posts,
>> what's the difference?
>
> The answer is 'yes'.  I like to keep the correspondence
> understandable, and properly snipped.
>
> -- 
> [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
> [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>;
>            Try the download section. 

Chris,
    It was not the concensus of those that started the NGs. If it was, why 
can you not supply any Usenet versions of these documents? Actually exactly 
the opposite, Usenet documents explain quite extensively how they are free 
and open without restriction and only moderated if the NG is a moderated 
group.

    No matter how hard you pine, the ARPAnet is not coming back. Join this 
century sometime soon.

    You're perfect proof of your last statement. The boorish part fits 
nicely since you  fail to acknowledge the right of unmoderated groups to 
free and unrestricted dialogue without interference from others like 
yourself who have silly simplistic issues with posting style rather than 
content or ideas.
-- 
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.

"Chris H" <c...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message 
news:9...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <wgYGk.4136$j...@newsfe10.iad>, Brad Velander 
> <b...@SpamThis.com> writes
>>Chuck,
>>    Where is the relevance of your references? Who created and voted on
>>those references?
>
> It was the consensus of those who started the NG's  Some 20 years ago.
>
>>    Heaven forbid you would ever subscribe to some of the groups I 
>> monitor,
>>horrors..., they post using unicode in foreign languages.
>
> If that is what the group agreed than that is fine.
>
> Every now and again we get people who join a particular NG and than want 
> to  ignore the conventions of that group. It is just plain rudeness.
>
> The trouble is when the4 net started there was an entry qualification* nor 
> they let in anyone  and the level of discourse in some groups is akin to a 
> kindergarten.
>
>
> *At one time you had to be at least an under grad in a 
> scientific/computing discipline or at a government (or other) research 
> site to even know the Internet existed.  Now any boorish idiot can get on 
> .
>
>
> -- 
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
>
>
> 

In message <%AgHk.3926$j...@newsfe08.iad>, Brad Velander 
<b...@SpamThis.com> writes
>Chris,
>    It was not the concensus of those that started the NGs. If it was, why
>can you not supply any Usenet versions of these documents?

Because it was 20+ years ago.

> Actually exactly
>the opposite, Usenet documents explain quite extensively how they are free
>and open without restriction and only moderated if the NG is a moderated
>group.

Not usually. The charters etc do contain the rules

>
>    No matter how hard you pine, the ARPAnet is not coming back. Join this
>century sometime soon.

Never been on ARPAnet.

>    You're perfect proof of your last statement. The boorish part fits
>nicely since you  fail to acknowledge the right of unmoderated groups to
>free and unrestricted dialogue without interference from others like
>yourself who have silly simplistic issues with posting style rather than
>content or ideas.

Not at all. There is a general social convention of how we all behave 
politely. Every now and again some one crashes in and says "I will do it 
my way even if those here think it rude".

It is simple manners. Though CBF can get a bit pedantic about it.


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In message <DcgHk.1385$J...@newsfe06.iad>, Brad Velander 
<b...@SpamThis.com> writes
>Well Chuck,
>    You're the first I have ever heard of bottom posting emails.

It has been the norm in the 50+ NG's I have been on over the last 18 
years on line.

>Inter-mixed
>quite possibly and I do it myself for certian types of emails/content.

I tend to prefer that myself.

> But I
>certainly don't need to read the original posts over and over again with
>every reply before I reach the new original thoughts of the current poster.

I agree, you have to trim posts. The point you need to remember is that 
each email needs to stand alone.

>have already read, possibly several times. However, Usenet saw fit to make
>most forums unmoderated and without such silly rules

This is not correct almost every  NG has a charter and rules as you will 
know, if like me, you have actually created an NG.  The few that don't 
are some of the original ones from before the great name change. That 
was before I came on line 18 years ago.

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In article <DcgHk.1385$J...@newsfe06.iad>, b...@SpamThis.com 
says...
> Well Chuck,
>     You're the first I have ever heard of bottom posting emails. Inter-mixed 
> quite possibly and I do it myself for certian types of emails/content. But I 
> certainly don't need to read the original posts over and over again with 
> every reply before I reach the new original thoughts of the current poster. 
> But the post initiating my response is there like a footnote or appendix if 
> anybody needs such reference/memory assistance.
> 
> And I despise bottom posts because I don't want to search for their new 
> original thoughts/comments through the prior comments and thoughts that I 
> have already read, possibly several times. However, Usenet saw fit to make 
> most forums unmoderated and without such silly rules so it is not my spot to 
> critique others unless they are breaking a definite rule or actually being 
> rude and obnoxious, not simply because I don't personally like their posting 
> format.

Well you will find very small group of people even bothering to read
your posts.

Surprise surprise I will not see any response he ,may make to this.

-- 
Paul Carpenter          | p...@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/>;    PC Services
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/fonts/>; Timing Diagram Font
<http://www.gnuh8.org.uk/>;  GNU H8 - compiler & Renesas H8/H8S/H8 Tiny
<http://www.badweb.org.uk/>; For those web sites you hate

On Oct 9, 3:36=A0am, Paul Carpenter <p...@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk>
wrote:
> In article <DcgHk.1385$JJ4.1...@newsfe06.iad>, bvel...@SpamThis.com
> says...
>
> > Well Chuck,
> > =A0 =A0 You're the first I have ever heard of bottom posting emails. In=
ter-mixed
> > quite possibly and I do it myself for certian types of emails/content. =
But I
> > certainly don't need to read the original posts over and over again wit=
h
> > every reply before I reach the new original thoughts of the current pos=
ter.
> > But the post initiating my response is there like a footnote or appendi=
x if
> > anybody needs such reference/memory assistance.
>
> > And I despise bottom posts because I don't want to search for their new
> > original thoughts/comments through the prior comments and thoughts that=
 I
> > have already read, possibly several times. However, Usenet saw fit to m=
ake
> > most forums unmoderated and without such silly rules so it is not my sp=
ot to
> > critique others unless they are breaking a definite rule or actually be=
ing
> > rude and obnoxious, not simply because I don't personally like their po=
sting
> > format.
>
> Well you will find very small group of people even bothering to read
> your posts.
>
> Surprise surprise I will not see any response he ,may make to this.

So who the hell are you talking to???

Brad Velander wrote:
> Well Chuck, You're the first I have ever heard of bottom
> posting emails.

Wow ... I feel odd ;)

Bottom posting (with judicious trimming) is just a
special case of intermixing where there is only a single
point of discussion.

> Inter-mixed quite possibly and I do it myself for certian
> types of emails/content. But I certainly don't need to
> read the original posts over and over again with every
> reply before I reach the new original thoughts of the
> current poster.

Then perhaps you are not holding enough simultaneous e-mail
conversations or have an unusual ability to juggle those
conversations in your head. The problem gets worse when
the subject line diverges from the actual topic of
conversation.



-- 
Michael N. Moran           (h) 770 516 7918
5009 Old Field Ct.         (c) 678 521 5460
Kennesaw, GA, USA 30144    http://mnmoran.org

"So often times it happens, that we live our lives in chains
  and we never even know we have the key."
"Already Gone" by Jack Tempchin (recorded by The Eagles)

The Beatles were wrong: 1 & 1 & 1 is 1