Torque wrenches

SMMB

"DRS" <drs@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
news:c5je91$l51$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> ML <mlockerLoves2Ski@us.ibm.com> wrote in message
> 407D34FC.4020506@us.ibm.com
S> > I could but tell me why I should. I personally prefer to have the
I> > most recent text on top so I don't need to scroll theough multiple
D> > screens of either stuff I've already read or stuff I don't want to
E> > read.
-> >
P> > So tell me why I should?
O>
S> I think you know very well why you should but just like to be selfish and
T> cause trouble.
I>
N> --
G>
!!> A: Top-posters.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
>
>

ML

No actually I would really like someone to tell me why I should.

MOO,
Matt

DRS wrote:
> ML <mlockerLoves2Ski@us.ibm.com> wrote in message
> 407D34FC.4020506@us.ibm.com
>
>>I could but tell me why I should. I personally prefer to have the
>>most recent text on top so I don't need to scroll theough multiple
>>screens of either stuff I've already read or stuff I don't want to
>>read.
>>
>>So tell me why I should?
>
>
> I think you know very well why you should but just like to be selfish and
> cause trouble.
>

S o r n i

ML wrote:
> No actually I would really like someone to tell me why I should.

Because people click on new posts and see your words with no idea what the
hell you're talking about. (Not everyone reads entire threads from start to
finish, much less all at one time.)

It also totally screws up succeeding replies, as now there's this misplaced
chunk of text that either has to be moved or snipped for coherency.

It's not so bad in e-mail, as presumably the correspondents know what has
been written previously, but in Usenet it's a sure sign of imbecilitude
(ought to be a word if it ain't!)...

Bill "sort of like an idiot at a blackjack table, wrecking the flow of
cards" S.

Alan Hoyle

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:29:09 -0400, ML wrote:
> No actually I would really like someone to tell me why I should.

Because the standard convention for posting a follow-up is to bottom
post after trimming away everything except what you're replying to.
As it is, nobody can tell what context your message has unless they
scroll down to the bottom of the message to find out. It's a little
bit more work for you when you're writing your reply, but it makes
everything clearer for the everyone else who reads it later.

Also, not top-posting will prevent anyone from complaining about how
you top-post. Isn't that enough?

-alan

--
Alan Hoyle - alanh@unc.edu - http://www.alanhoyle.com/
"I don't want the world, I just want your half." -TMBG
Get Horizontal, Play Ultimate.

ML

Alan Hoyle wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:29:09 -0400, ML wrote:
>
>>No actually I would really like someone to tell me why I should.
>
>
> Because the standard convention for posting a follow-up is to bottom
> post after trimming away everything except what you're replying to.
> As it is, nobody can tell what context your message has unless they
> scroll down to the bottom of the message to find out. It's a little
> bit more work for you when you're writing your reply, but it makes
> everything clearer for the everyone else who reads it later.
>
> Also, not top-posting will prevent anyone from complaining about how
> you top-post. Isn't that enough?
>
> -alan
>

Alan:

What convention says top-posting is wrong. Point me to where it is
written that "thou shalt bottom post when replying".

In any event, I will change my setup.

MOO,
Matt

Rick Onanian

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:56:28 -0400, ML <mlockerLoves2Ski@us.ibm.com>
wrote:
>So tell me why I should?

No thanks. I'm sure we've both been over it enough times.

>BTW, you're right about g.daniels. He says he can write legibly but
>prefers not to. You know, style & all that crap. What a waste.......

Not a waste. Entertainment.

>MOO,

Well, if you close your messages by mooing, I suppose I can forgive
top-posting...

....er, but where do I put my '--' and name? Before the quote,
effectively killing it, or after the quote, making my signature hard
to find?

>Rick Onanian wrote:
>> g.daniels wrote:
>> <babble>
>>
>> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 08:24:27 -0400, ML <mlockerLoves2Ski@us.ibm.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>?????????????????????????????????????????????????
>>>Can you repeat in some understandable dialect of English?
>>
>>
>> No, he can't. He's some sort of alien, or something. Really. Google
>> groups for his messages...
>>
>> Can you avoid top-posting?
>> --
>> Rick Onanian
--
Rick "Moo sed zcow" Onanian

ML

S o r n i wrote:
> ML wrote:
>
>>No actually I would really like someone to tell me why I should.
>
>
> Because people click on new posts and see your words with no idea what the
> hell you're talking about. (Not everyone reads entire threads from start to
> finish, much less all at one time.)
>
> It also totally screws up succeeding replies, as now there's this misplaced
> chunk of text that either has to be moved or snipped for coherency.
>
> It's not so bad in e-mail, as presumably the correspondents know what has
> been written previously, but in Usenet it's a sure sign of imbecilitude
> (ought to be a word if it ain't!)...
>
> Bill "sort of like an idiot at a blackjack table, wrecking the flow of
> cards" S.
>
>

I suspect it really depends on what newsreader a person uses. I despise
bottom posted threads but that's JMO. I end up spending more time
scrolling through all the previous stuff just to find the bottom.
That's a waste of time.

Matt

Rick Onanian

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 14:42:26 GMT, Mark Janeba
<mandmlj@PLEASEcomDONTSPAMcast.net> wrote:
>How about a five-and-a-quarter millimeter wrench? Now *that* would be
>exotic.

I've got that, it looks like this:
http://www.ee.nmt.edu/~mrobokit/ass...ent_wrenchb.jpg
or this: http://ksclub.com/club/reference/p-...vise%20grip.JPG
--
Rick Onanian

Benjamin Lewis

mlockerLoves2Ski@us.ibm.com wrote:

[ re: top-posting versus other styles ]
> I suspect it really depends on what newsreader a person uses.

No, this is a style issue independent of newsreaders. Some newsreaders
do encourage bad habits more than others, though.

> I despise bottom posted threads but that's JMO.

Messages that contain reams of quoted material before a response at the
bottom are almost as bad. Quote the relevant sections to which you wish to
respond, and put your responses right below.

> I end up spending more time scrolling through all the previous stuff just
> to find the bottom. That's a waste of time.

That's due to lack of selected trimming of quoted material which, again, is
also annoying. If you interleave your responses with trimmed quoted
material, as I've done here, your posts become much more readable.

--
Benjamin Lewis

A small, but vocal, contingent even argues that tin is superior, but they
are held by most to be the lunatic fringe of Foil Deflector Beanie science.

Alan Hoyle

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 17:30:47 -0400, ML wrote:


> What convention says top-posting is wrong. Point me to where it is
> written that "thou shalt bottom post when replying".

> In any event, I will change my setup.

Thanks for listening...

http://www.faqs.org/docs/jargon/T/top-post.html
http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

etc...

-alan

--
Alan Hoyle - alanh@unc.edu - http://www.alanhoyle.com/
"I don't want the world, I just want your half." -TMBG
Get Horizontal, Play Ultimate.

A Muzi

John Everett wrote:
> I knw this is all tongue-in-cheek, but Mr. Chapman's full name was
> Anthony Colin Bruce Chapman. Thus the "ACBC" on the Lotus badge. The
> "A" didn't stand for Abarth.

Thanks very much!

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

ML

Benjamin Lewis wrote:
> mlockerLoves2Ski@us.ibm.com wrote:
>
> [ re: top-posting versus other styles ]
>
>>I suspect it really depends on what newsreader a person uses.
>
>
> No, this is a style issue independent of newsreaders. Some newsreaders
> do encourage bad habits more than others, though.
>
>
>>I despise bottom posted threads but that's JMO.
>
>
> Messages that contain reams of quoted material before a response at the
> bottom are almost as bad. Quote the relevant sections to which you wish to
> respond, and put your responses right below.
>
>
>>I end up spending more time scrolling through all the previous stuff just
>>to find the bottom. That's a waste of time.
>
>
> That's due to lack of selected trimming of quoted material which, again, is
> also annoying. If you interleave your responses with trimmed quoted
> material, as I've done here, your posts become much more readable.
>

Benjamin:

Thanks for your post. Of all the posts thus far, this is the only one
that attempted to justify the argument. I think I'll still argue that
it's a newsreader issue. And the fact that different newsreaders
encourage one form of posting over the other says to me that there is a
large difference of opinion on the subject.

I find that inteleaving is the worst form of response. Unfortunately,
sometimes it's necessary. The problem with this is that now you end up
with no clear time sequence to the thread.

Personally, I will be bottom posting for a while to see how I feel on
the issue. If I find it revolting then I will revert to top-posting.
This to me is a "religion" issue, and I'm really not religious.

MOO,
Matt

ML

Rick Onanian wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:56:28 -0400, ML <mlockerLoves2Ski@us.ibm.com>
> wrote:
>
>>So tell me why I should?
>
>
> No thanks. I'm sure we've both been over it enough times.
>
>
>>BTW, you're right about g.daniels. He says he can write legibly but
>>prefers not to. You know, style & all that crap. What a waste.......
>
>
> Not a waste. Entertainment.
>
>
>>MOO,
>
>
> Well, if you close your messages by mooing, I suppose I can forgive
> top-posting...
>
> ...er, but where do I put my '--' and name? Before the quote,
> effectively killing it, or after the quote, making my signature hard
> to find?
>
>
>>Rick Onanian wrote:
>>
>>>g.daniels wrote:
>>><babble>
>>>
>>>On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 08:24:27 -0400, ML <mlockerLoves2Ski@us.ibm.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>?????????????????????????????????????????????????
>>>>Can you repeat in some understandable dialect of English?
>>>
>>>
>>>No, he can't. He's some sort of alien, or something. Really. Google
>>>groups for his messages...
>>>
>>>Can you avoid top-posting?
>>>--
>>>Rick Onanian
>>
> --
> Rick "Moo sed zcow" Onanian

Rick:

Come on, I'm waiting for you to show me where it's written. You're the
one who started this so it's up to you to prove your point. If you
can't give me a definitive statement all these posts are going back to
the top!

g.daniels is entertainment the way having your gums scraped is
entertainment. Something I can do without. I pretty much just ignore
all his posts. For some reason I read this one and couldn't believe
that after all this time he still writes like a moron. All in the
pursuit of style! Like I said, what a waste. Truthfully, I suspect
that somewhere in his brain lurks an intelligent person. You'd never
know it from his posts though.

g.daniels, if you read this take it to heart. Not for our sake, for
yours. Well, maybe for our sake too!

MOO (My Opinion Only),
Matt

Tom Paterson

>From: ML

>I find that inteleaving is the worst form of response. Unfortunately,
>sometimes it's necessary. The problem with this is that now you end up
>with no clear time sequence to the >thread.

???

Responses made to specific points, quoted (marked) so as to ID who is speaking.
Snips, changes in order noted. This muddies a time sequence?

>This to me is a "religion" issue (snip)

It's a social issue. --TP