The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Spam Hater 7)
Subject: Re: NG etiquette
Date: 18 Nov 2002 17:23:04 -0800
NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Nov 2002 01:23:04 GMT
email@example.com (Gibbo) wrote in message news:<firstname.lastname@example.org>...
> email@example.com (Spam Hater 7) wrote:
> >"Phil Allison" wrote in message
> >> > Could someone please explain what's wrong with top posting?
> >> ** Everything. Do a Google search on "top posting usenet" and read
> >> dozens of explanations.
> >> ................ Phil
> >But... The google news reader itself encourages top-posting; it will
> >trim away bottom-posted replies.
> >IME, top-posted replies are MUCH easier to read.
> >(This reply bottom posted as to not offend the luddites.)
> Google advises................
> Plus it's better, clearer, easier...... etc
Google should practice what they preach, or the "easier" clause will
remain false. (Better is -very- subjective.)
There are messages -in this thread- that can't be read easily with the
Google news reader. Why? Because the reply was bottom posted.
If the reply had been top posted, it would have been 1 click to read.
Because it (the reply) was bottom posted, it's a couple of extra
clicks, and (worse) a couple of extra page loads.
If top-posting really bothers you that much:
1) Stop and take a deep breath.
2) Count to ten.
3) Ignore it.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup