top posting

Since there seems to be a protocol about posting after previous posts
does anyone know a way of setting up a news reader to avoid the ball
ache of scrolling past umteen copies of the same message to get at the
new message. Wouldn't care to argue but why post last in last out
anyway? You only need to read the original once?

<anyone@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:hdq00058kgs35o713tt9cffmhm6u0tuvpj@4ax.com...
> Since there seems to be a protocol about posting after previous posts
> does anyone know a way of setting up a news reader to avoid the ball
> ache of scrolling past umteen copies of the same message to get at the
> new message. Wouldn't care to argue but why post last in last out
> anyway? You only need to read the original once?

I have to wonder why you'd ask that question here, where as far as I can see
or remember you've never posted (at least not significantly). I'm sure you
can find a better group to ask this in - please look!

David

Click in the message body, then press CTRL + End.

/Zak

<anyone@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:hdq00058kgs35o713tt9cffmhm6u0tuvpj@4ax.com...
> Since there seems to be a protocol about posting after previous posts
> does anyone know a way of setting up a news reader to avoid the ball
> ache of scrolling past umteen copies of the same message to get at the
> new message. Wouldn't care to argue but why post last in last out
> anyway? You only need to read the original once?

Click in the message body, then press CTRL + End.

/Zak

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:43:03 -0000, "David Walker"
<wbsdavenews@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
><anyone@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:hdq00058kgs35o713tt9cffmhm6u0tuvpj@4ax.com.. .
>> Since there seems to be a protocol about posting after previous posts
>> does anyone know a way of setting up a news reader to avoid the ball
>> ache of scrolling past umteen copies of the same message to get at the
>> new message. Wouldn't care to argue but why post last in last out
>> anyway? You only need to read the original once?
>
>I have to wonder why you'd ask that question here, where as far as I can see
>or remember you've never posted (at least not significantly). I'm sure you
>can find a better group to ask this in - please look!
>
>David
>

Because this is the news group which is of interest to me as
relatively new starter to diving and to reading any news groups for
that matter. I have to wonder why the hostile response but not enough
to trouble you for an answer. I will unsubscribe and get my advice
elsewhere as you suggest.

anyone@btinternet.com wrote:
> Since there seems to be a protocol about posting after previous posts
> does anyone know a way of setting up a news reader to avoid the ball
> ache of scrolling past umteen copies of the same message to get at the
> new message. Wouldn't care to argue but why post last in last out
> anyway? You only need to read the original once?

Sounds to me like you are trolling.

However, in the interests of keeping it friendly I will try and explain.

The trick is not just to blindly Bottom Post. That is as unreadable as
top posting. The trick is to snip all the irrelavent bits and then to
put your answer below the bit you are answering. That way the messages
don't get too big, and only the petinant bits are repeated.

Yes it does take a bit of effort on the part of the poster, but it makes
for much nicer conversation.

HTH
John
(BTW if you really want to try trolling with this technique, try UKRM,
you will be very welcome there, I'm sure.)

"John Kendall" <News@johnkendall.com> wrote in message
news:btru07$53snc$1@ID-173458.news.uni-berlin.de

> (BTW if you really want to try trolling with this technique, try UKRM,
> you will be very welcome there, I'm sure.)

Popcorn, anyone?

Vic.





--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

anyone@btinternet.com wrote:
> "David Walker" wrote:
>> <anyone@btinternet.com> wrote
>>> Since there seems to be a protocol about posting after previous
>>
>> I have to wonder why you'd ask that question here,
>
> Because this is the news group which is of interest to me as
> relatively new starter to diving and to reading any news groups for
> that matter.

Well look at it. There is a convention and this is the convention because
it makes sense. I am the 4th reply. I trim the unwanted stuff and reply
under the bit I'm replying too. Just scrolling down is stupid. You just want to
set what YOU have to say in context.
One of the classic newbie errors is to reproduce a 150 line post with
the subscript "me too". For some reason this is known as AOL syndrome.

> I have to wonder why the hostile response but not enough
> to trouble you for an answer.

Because it is a question we get asked all to often and we are tired
of it. Perhaps some people are just more tired of it than others.

> I will unsubscribe and get my advice
> elsewhere as you suggest.

If you wish to discuss usenet protocols anonymously that
might be best. If you're interested in UK diving that might not
be so good.
I cannot make that decision for you.

nigelH

What's top posting?!!!

"John Kendall" <News@johnkendall.com> wrote in message
news:btru07$53snc$1@ID-173458.news.uni-berlin.de...
> anyone@btinternet.com wrote:
> That way the messages don't get too big, and only the petinant bits are
repeated.
>


"Pertinant"

Spelling is also a good habit to keep up with

"Tricky" <scubatricky@nospam.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:btsmod$8ir$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk

> "Pertinant"
>
> Spelling is also a good habit to keep up with

It is. Especially when you spell it "pertinent"...

Vic.





--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Tricky wrote:
> What's top posting?!!!
>
> "John Kendall" <News@johnkendall.com> wrote in message
> news:btru07$53snc$1@ID-173458.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>>anyone@btinternet.com wrote:
>>That way the messages don't get too big, and only the petinant bits are
>
> repeated.
>
>
>
> "Pertinant"
>
> Spelling is also a good habit to keep up with

Well it would be if I ever managed to get the habit. But then again, I
always thought that whoever invented the word dyslexia was being cruel.

John