That's the point. No one on *usenet* cares what the rules are or aren't
on your private server. Those rules are irrelevant to practices and
usages on usenet.

As I said before, we were discussing posting styles. I am referring to posting style
across any NNTP or email type discussion list. You are the one who won't get off your
"Usenet" high horse. (And for being such a sanctimonious expert on Usenet, you'd think
you'd know enough to capitalize it.)

I was waiting for the "oh but we're so MODERN now!" shtick. Have these
self-congratulatory worthies read this:

http://www.digital-web.com/tutorials..._1999-12.shtml


Hmm... seems this guy is referring to EMAIL lists, not USENET? LOL. Not as much of a
harpie as you are, I see?


Actually, it's top posters who have ADD. They can't keep context even
if they tried, and they don't care anyway. It shows.

You must have very severe ADD if you cannot follow the logic here. People who top post
general read the posts and often even DAYS after, need only to see the current posters
thoughts in order to follow the conversation. It is much more typical of ADD (Attention
Deficit Disorder) to forget what you just read and be forced to re-read it to comprehend.


| Tell me, when you talk with someone, do you first repeat what they
| had to say, while making cute little "quote" signs with your fingers,

No, we talk about things one at a time. A conversation is not a formal
debates where everyone gets a chance to deliver a monologue.

Perhaps YOUR conversations aren't. If you have tact and manners, you allow other people
their say before interrupting them, hence a conversation is essentially people stating
their opinion, which would be monologue (as long as some boor doesn't butt in).

Electronic conversation allows simultaneity of topics, and interleaving
is what *allows* such parallelism with minimal to nonexistent confusion.

It's all about context.

ANY conversation can allow simultaneity of topics. Perhaps you should try conversing with
folks who have the intelligence to carry on a multi-tiered conversation. Or perhaps it is
that ADD showing symptoms again, and you must carry on a one-track discussion with a
one-track mind?

I'm in no great rush to say what I want to say. If it isn't in context,
I won't say anything at all.

You seem to have a lot to say, which isn't in context. Your original attack on a poster in
a cat forum was out of context, for the purpose of insulting her choice of posting styles.

You sound as if you have an exaggerated sense of the importance of what
YOU want to say. The "Me first! Me! Me!! Me!!!" urge is typical.

It has nothing to do with importance. I prefer to read when OTHERS top post. I want to see
what THAT post says, NOT a series of regurgitations from the entire thread which I already
read.

Oh, but it is, your attempts to drop context notwithstanding.
I see your exaggerated sense of self importance leads you to believe that you should
control the entire gist of a discussion. My point is on POST STYLES. Not explicitly Usenet
posting style, but email discussion lists, and private forums, which all operate on very
similar premises. Don't believe me? Read the article at the link YOU provided in an
attempt to support your lame POV.

| It is about the redundancy of bottom posting, with quotage and snippage.

Huh!?

*Not* snipping is *not* redundant? Leaving a mishmash of hundreds of
mangled lines hanging off the end of a post is *not* redundant?

The point being, you don't have to SCROLL the mismash IF YOU DON'T WANT TO, in order to
get to the 'meat' of the post. You can read down if you NEED to, but you aren't forced to,
by virtue of having to "find" the new content of the current post.

If you're arguing that there should be no quoting *at all*, then by all
means put that belief into practice. Go to Tools - Options - Send,
and uncheck the box that says "Include message in reply".

I don't argue that either. I just think people should be free to post as they like. I have
to read through patchwork snip, chop, copy and paste bottom-posting, interleaved
conversations. Why do the bottom posters always whine about reading top posts? If you
don't like it KMA.

If you think usenet is about serial monologues, then you're definitely
in the wrong place. You should be on an IRC channel, where you can toss
your two cents into the amorphous stream scrolling by.

No, because Usenet is structured in threads. IRC is not structured, with each message
inserted upon its order of being received at the server. Why do you think messages are
"grouped" by threads?


I didn't say it did. Can you read? Do you understand the word "if"?

It reeks of insinuation.

So how did it even affect you, unless you were pointing your client at
Microsoft's server? Any other server carrying the newsgroup would not
have had the problem.

Sorry to tell you, but it affected everyone, many who subscribed through their ISP
servers.

In fact, I assumed that it probably *didn't* affect you; that you were
just giving an example of a "server error". Which is why I pointed out
that the example was a problem in indexing on a particular server, not a
problem with the newsgroup at large (all over usenet). However, since
this was in the context of what you described you had to watch for on
your private server, there was the *possibility* that you had had the
problem yourself. Hence my "if".

Yes it *did* affect me, as a subscriber. And not it was not something that happened on my
server. I was merely making a point that sometimes threads get garbled, either by the
client, or at the server level, and yes, even on Usenet.

| There you go again, judging someone's preference as a "bad habit".

It's a bad habit. That they might "prefer" it is irrelevant.

Well, I will take my bad habit of posting in an efficient manner over your bad habit of
posting in an archaic style, and your bad manners, any day.

Why don't you just say that you can't be bothered to *edit* your posts?
What is the point? To cost me more time in composing, and cost the reader more time in
reading? Gee, that is intelligent! Not!

All these lame excuses, when your essential point was...
So what is your lame excuse? "Well this is the way the people who formed Usenet did it way
back when......" You know, cavemen at their meat raw, before fire, but that doesn't mean
it is the best way to enjoy your steak.

| And it was a huge PITA, and took three times as long as simply typing
| what I had to say, and hitting send,

...this.
Such a rush to get in what YOU wanted to say, the hell with everything
else.
Actually, I prefer top-posting because it is faster to READ and COMPREHEND, for those of
us who don't have ADD and have already read and digested the previous contents of the
thread.


| but as a matter of being considerate,
Lost on you, apparently.

You wouldn't know the definition of considerate if it nipped you in the arse.

| as I said, when in Rome....

Don't bother, really.

As I said, in my second reply to you -sorry, in the throes of your ADD, that hasn't been
quoted since the post, so allow me to regurgitate it for you:

Killfile away.



I am thankful of one thing, there are no sanctimonious, self-righteous boors such as you
that visit my groups.

Even my ardent bottom posters have manners.

D.