Brendan DJ Murphy wrote:

I hate people who top-post.
All you see is their message and the reader has no idea what the writer is
writing about.

"Rob Overfield" wrote in message
news
"danny (west kent)" wrote in message
...

I prefer top posting. I won't go into the reasons why but I would bottom
post if everyone wanted me to.
I think the most important point is to remove all the 'junk' (ip adreses
etc.) , and delete all the stuff not relevant. Some threads are very
difficult to read.

The threads would be easier to follow if everyone stck to the same method!
I think someone's already said that in this thread though!

I've seen this debate before in other groups and the consensus was that
bottom posting is far better as regards the natural flow. The reason top
posting exists is that some readers like OE place the cursor at the top of
the page, which is lazy, instead of the more natural and more logical way
of
replying after the quote.

To those who prefer top posting, do you make a habit of replying to
something before its said? Surely it is far better to read the quote and
see
the response than vice versa, having to scroll down to work out what the
reply is referring to?

I would like to suggest that "quote then reply" is the preferred norm in
u.s.w....
--
Rob Overfield
Hull
http://www.astrosport02.karoo.net/YorkshireWeather/




Bottom posting is so annoying. I've been following this thread and now I
have to scroll down past everything I've already read to read what the
previous writer(s) have already written.





























I hate people who only write short replies unnecessarily

--
Jonathan Stott
Canterbury Weather: http://www.canterburyweather.co.uk/

In article ,
Jack Harrison writes:
snip
"Quote then Reply" would be a lot easier to understand than "Bottom
Posting".

Agreed. I've never liked the misleading term "bottom posting" and prefer
to call it "interspersed posting".
--
John Hall

"Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong."
Oscar Wilde

In article ,
Rob Overfield writes:
snip
I've seen this debate before in other groups and the consensus was that
bottom posting is far better as regards the natural flow. The reason top
posting exists is that some readers like OE place the cursor at the top of
the page, which is lazy, instead of the more natural and more logical way of
replying after the quote.

That's not the problem. You want the cursor at the top initially when
composing your reply, so you can easily work your way through the
article that you're responding to, cutting out bits that you aren't
addressing and inserting your responses in the appropriate places.

What OE does wrong is it sticks your own sig _above_ the quoted text,
not after it where it should be. Naturally people then type in their
text before the sig.
--
John Hall

"Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong."
Oscar Wilde

"Jack Harrison" wrote here on 29 Jan 2005:

snip
In brief:
When someone wants to reply or add comments to an earlier posting,
they should quote the relevant bits ONLY and then add the reply.
snip

Agreed absolutely. If a group has top-posting as its standard
(24hoursupport.helpdesk does) then that's one thing, but otherwise I
find it much less easy to read. And please, folks, don't put a reply
*beneath* someone else's sig, since many newsreaders assume that
everything beneath the sig separator (hyphen-hyphen-space) is part of
the sig and will display it as such.

--
Please remove ".invalid" to reply by email.

Support the world's oldest motorsport venue!
http://www.shelsley-walsh.co.uk/future.html

lawrence Jenkins wrote:
I'm a bottom advocate as well as being an anarchist.

Yes, I must say that I like a nice bottom.

--
Howard Neil

"Jack Harrison" wrote :
"lawrence Jenkins" wrote:

I'm a bottom advocate as well as being an anarchist.

There is the confusion I initially wrote about.
You top posted (ie above the previous postings) yet you say you are a
bottom advocate.
I think you are a top advocate.

Jack, I think Lawrence is just being an anarchist. His, ahem,
personal preferences are really no concern of ours.

pe

"David Buttery" wrote:
"Jack Harrison" wrote:

In brief:
When someone wants to reply or add comments to an earlier posting,
they should quote the relevant bits ONLY and then add the reply.

Agreed absolutely. If a group has top-posting as its standard
(24hoursupport.helpdesk does) then that's one thing, but otherwise I
find it much less easy to read. And please, folks, don't put a reply
*beneath* someone else's sig, since many newsreaders assume that
everything beneath the sig separator (hyphen-hyphen-space) is part of
the sig and will display it as such.

I always snip names, addresses, and sigs, but leave the
attributions at the top ... the arrangement of messages is then
entirely logical, as long as the chevrons are there. This is how
I had it explained back in 1995 and I've not heard or read a
better argument since.

Philip Eden

"Philip Eden" philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote

Jack, I think Lawrence is just being an anarchist. His, ahem,
personal preferences are really no concern of ours.

Reminds me of an anecdotal Air Traffic Control conversation.

ATC: "Air France 1234. What are your flight conditions?"
Air France: "In and out of ze bottoms." (meaning at cloud base)
Qantas (in richest Australian accent): "Vive le sport!"

However, I actually heard the following at Charles de Gaulle airport, Paris
"You 'ave a Yumbo up your backside. When 'e 'as pulled out, you are
cleared to taxi"

Jack

I did say I was an anarchist Jack.



"Jack Harrison" wrote in message
.. .

"lawrence Jenkins" wrote
I'm a bottom advocate as well as being an anarchist.

There is the confusion I initially wrote about.
You top posted (ie above the previous postings) yet you say you are a
bottom
advocate.
I think you are a top advocate.

This format I have just used, ie quoting you then replying, is called
bottom
posting. (I think)

Jack

I did say I was an anarchist Jack.

Well - and I know I will deeply regret this posting in the cold light of a
Sunday morning, but sod it - it seems to come down to personal preferences.

Tits or bums?

Would the female users of this newsgroup care to add their views?

Jack (after 3.5 cans of John Smith's "Original" )