Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
( OT ) Apology to John H
John Gaquin wrote:
Nothing to do with presence or absence of insults. Why avoid that topic? You personally are not among the worst offenders, but your team owes a few centuries in the penalty box. ... I was referring to the practice of cutting and pasting the context -- attaching response B to statement A to make the speaker appear to have said something entirely different from what was actually said. I didn't see that, and can't say what the intent is; but there is a lot of very careless quoting going on. I don't see any point in trying to read a post with five or fifteen nested quotes, with a two sentence reply at the very bottom. Regards Doug King |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
( OT ) Apology to John H
"DSK" wrote in message news:8iq3c.55650 ........I don't see any point in trying to read a post with five or fifteen nested quotes, with a two sentence reply at the very bottom. I agree with you there. These nimrods who post and repost the same messages over and over 12 times in the course of multiple replies, winding up with 354 lines of requote and header, and three lines of message at the bottom, do nothing but waste space and aggravate people. The only rationalization I've heard is that Usenet has always done it that way -- along with bottom posting, which I think is equally dim. People ought to be able to keep up with the conversation with only a line or two of salient quote. End rant. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
( OT ) Apology to John H
John Gaquin wrote:
.... These nimrods who post and repost the same messages over and over 12 times in the course of multiple replies, winding up with 354 lines of requote and header, and three lines of message at the bottom, do nothing but waste space and aggravate people. There! Some real "consensus building" in action!! Now all we have to do is get the nimrods to get their acts together. Y'think if we lead by example.... DSK |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
( OT ) Apology to John H
I agree also. I usually top post to save readers from the same old info I'm replying to. Then some whiz will occasionally come back and give me **** for top posting. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
( OT ) Apology to John H
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 00:19:06 GMT, "Don White" wrote: I agree also. I usually top post to save readers from the same old info I'm replying to. Then some whiz will occasionally come back and give me **** for top posting. IMHO, top posting is cumbersome for the simple reason that when trying to respond to several talking points, it's helpful to place your responses directly below the passages that you are directly responding to, in order to establish the proper context for which to place your comments. If you are reading a 500 word post and have only a one sentence summary to make of the whole passage, then top posting might make sense. But I rarely do that. Dave |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
( OT ) Apology to John H
Dave Hall wrote:
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 00:19:06 GMT, "Don White" wrote: I agree also. I usually top post to save readers from the same old info I'm replying to. Then some whiz will occasionally come back and give me **** for top posting. IMHO, top posting is cumbersome for the simple reason that when trying to respond to several talking points, it's helpful to place your responses directly below the passages that you are directly responding to, in order to establish the proper context for which to place your comments. If you are reading a 500 word post and have only a one sentence summary to make of the whole passage, then top posting might make sense. But I rarely do that. Dave Finally, I agree with Dave: he rarely makes sense. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
OT Hanoi John Kerry | General | |||
) OT ) Bush's "needless war" | General | |||
A Dickens Christmas | General |