Helmut Leitner schrieb...
> This group is very tolerant.

Yes, it is. I've seen. Programming oriented newsgroups seem to be more tollerant than other interest groups it seems. I subscribe to comp.arch.embedded and find fullquote postings there too but I can't remember a flame posting there.


> Typically top posting is attacked vigorously in the usenet.

I'm not so familiar with english groups. I've mostly seen them in german groups.

- Heinz

In article <MPG.19afde494536970b9896cd@news.digitalmars.com>, Heinz Saathoff wrote:
> Helmut Leitner schrieb...
>> This group is very tolerant.
> 
> Yes, it is. I've seen. Programming oriented newsgroups seem to be more tollerant than other interest groups it seems. I subscribe to comp.arch.embedded and find fullquote postings there too but I can't remember a flame posting there.

Typographical issues seem to be of secondary relevance to most programmers. Probably because of lack of globally accepted coding standards: we are accustomed to seeing programs written with so many kinds of different coding conventions (some of them ugly as hell) that we have become immune to such external annoyances.

However, people that spend most of their time reading properly capitalized and formatted text in natural languages have the tendency to be very strict about the rules :)

Oh, and of course, this posting is an example of my preferred quoting style: quote as little as possible but as much as it is needed to make the context clear, and trust people to have "read parent message" in their newsreaders if they want to know more. (Does Outlook already have it?)  But I occasionally top-post, especially when replying to top-posted messages, so it's not exactly a religious issue.

-Antti

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Cox" <bill@viasic.com>
Newsgroups: D
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 10:26 AM
Subject: Top posting vs bottom posting


> Hi.
>
> I'm finding it hard to read posts on this group because we all add text either at the top or bottom of a reply, and we're not consistent. Imagine this message was a reply to the follwing:
>
>  >> Here is the third response.
>  >>>> Here is the first response.
>  >>>>> Here is the original post.
>  >>> Here is the second response.
>  > Here is the fourth response.
>
> Yuk.  Such posts actually exists.
>
> I don't care which way we do it, but wouldn't it be nice if we all did it the same?  I'll put in a vote for top-posting, since I like to see the most recent text without having to scroll down (since I usually already read the previous posts).  I currently bottom post, due to the logical argument that answers should naturally follow questions.
>
> Bill

Hi,

    I prefer to use bottom posting, but sometimes I respond in the middle of
the post (with a "Comments embedded" warning at the top). IMO there are
three kinds of problematic posts:

1 - posts filled with several layers of discussion: they should be snipped
once they get too old. Usually only the last two responses are neessary.
2 - Top posting, because they force you to find the replied message, read
it, then go to the beginning of the email and read the answer.
3 - "Me too" replies, except on voting.

    Best regards,
    Daniel Yokomiso.

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/8/2003