Vista - news group etiquette

When replying to a post do we add our reply above or below? I see both here
and was wondering what is preferred.

On Thu, 10 May 2007 13:22:50 +0200, Dave Horne wrote in
<news:O2MfYWvkHHA.4628@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>

> When replying to a post do we add our reply above or below? I see both here
> and was wondering what is preferred.

This is as good a guide as any.

http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

--
Mike Tullett - Coleraine 55.13°N 6.69°W posted 10/05/2007 11:40:45 GMT

"Dave Horne" <dave.horne@home.nl> wrote in
news:O2MfYWvkHHA.4628@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:

> When replying to a post do we add our reply above or below? I see
> both here and was wondering what is preferred.
>

Some here would try to get a donkey to push a cart

"Dave Horne" <dave.horne@home.nl> wrote in message
news:O2MfYWvkHHA.4628@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> When replying to a post do we add our reply above or below? I see both
> here and was wondering what is preferred.

I prefer the reply at the end like this, but that is, perhaps,
because I am used to groups that involve more discussion
and it is easier to follow this way.

"Mike Tullett" <mike.tullett1.for.newsgroups@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1odo0vz1eo42i$.dlg@miketullett.net...
> On Thu, 10 May 2007 13:22:50 +0200, Dave Horne wrote in
> <news:O2MfYWvkHHA.4628@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>
>
>> When replying to a post do we add our reply above or below? I see both
>> here
>> and was wondering what is preferred.
>
> This is as good a guide as any.
>
> http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
>

Yes, well put.
I think a good post should be able to stand alone. ie.
to be a coherent read regardless of its context within a thread.

I prefer the reply on top. so when you open message there is no need to scroll all over looking for answer.




mikeyhsd@comcast.net



"Dave Horne" <dave.horne@home.nl> wrote in message news:O2MfYWvkHHA.4628@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
When replying to a post do we add our reply above or below? I see both here
and was wondering what is preferred.

"mikeyhsd" <mikeyhsd@comcast.net> wrote in message news:OvoJ8fwkHHA.4112@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
I prefer the reply on top. so when you open message there is no need to scroll all over looking for answer.


A reason given by stubborn top-posters: they don't like to scroll to read the new message. We like to disagree here, because we always have to scroll down to see the original message and after that to scroll back up, just to see to what they are replying to. As a result you have to scroll twice as much when reading a top-poster's message. As a counterargument they say (believe us they do): "You can check the previous message in the discussion". This is even more tiresome than scrolling and with the unreliable nature of Usenet (and even email is inevitably unreliable), the previous message in the discussion can be simply unavailable.

This argument is as silly as whether the correct pronunciation of the red
item in a salad is called "tow-mah-tow' or "tow-may-tow."

The top posters are not going to be convinced to change, and the bottom
posters are going to stick with their preference. As far as scrolling
down -- and then up -- I find that a specious argument.

One can ask why it's proper to top post in an email but not proper to top
post in a newsgroup? The answer: "That's the way it's ALWAYS been done in
newsgroups" is not very convincing. People don't dress fancy to go to
baseball games anymore.

And I bet people won't have to guess whether I'm a top- or bottom-poster.
:>

Alan


"Julian" <Julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ECD2C45B-A506-4CF0-A593-C0254DE50037@microsoft.com...
"mikeyhsd" <mikeyhsd@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:OvoJ8fwkHHA.4112@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
I prefer the reply on top. so when you open message there is no need to
scroll all over looking for answer.


A reason given by stubborn top-posters: they don't like to scroll to read
the new message. We like to disagree here, because we always have to scroll
down to see the original message and after that to scroll back up, just to
see to what they are replying to. As a result you have to scroll twice as
much when reading a top-poster's message. As a counterargument they say
(believe us they do): "You can check the previous message in the
discussion". This is even more tiresome than scrolling and with the
unreliable nature of Usenet (and even email is inevitably unreliable), the
previous message in the discussion can be simply unavailable.

Ahh, but you only have to scroll down to read what was being replied to, IF you haven't been following the thread (or you missed viewing a message). If you know what the reply was in context of, you are saved the time!

With bottom posting, you have NO choice. You HAVE to scroll.....

Kurt
"Julian" <Julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ECD2C45B-A506-4CF0-A593-C0254DE50037@microsoft.com...
A reason given by stubborn top-posters: they don't like to scroll to read the new message. We like to disagree here, because we always have to scroll down to see the original message and after that to scroll back up, just to see to what they are replying to. As a result you have to scroll twice as much when reading a top-poster's message. As a counterargument they say (believe us they do): "You can check the previous message in the discussion". This is even more tiresome than scrolling and with the unreliable nature of Usenet (and even email is inevitably unreliable), the previous message in the discussion can be simply unavailable.

"Alan" <inthegalaxy@solarsystem.huh> wrote in message
news:%23VXHt3wkHHA.4516@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> This argument is as silly as whether the correct pronunciation of the red
> item in a salad is called "tow-mah-tow' or "tow-may-tow."

Not silly enough for you to keep out of though.