A New Years resolution for you walking " inline " posters

Mike P said:

Whats worse than top posting ... inline posting of course?

There seems to an increase in the number of contributors to this group
who interleave/inline their replies in the original post. This just
makes their reply completely disjointed and just does not flow, plus
making difficult reading.

Nope - it makes the discussion easy to follow as each point can be
picked up discretely.

Quoted message said:

Seems lazy too me.

In fact I don't bother to read them anymore at the obvious cost of
missing something .... but .. there you go :-)

You are being intentionally ironic here. . . . .aren't you??

druidh

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 09:37:41 GMT, druidh
<[email hidden]> wrote:

... >Mike P wrote:
... >> Whats worse than top posting ... inline posting of course?
... >>
... >> There seems to an increase in the number of contributors to this group
... >> who interleave/inline their replies in the original post. This just
... >> makes their reply completely disjointed and just does not flow, plus
... >> making difficult reading.
... >
... >Nope - it makes the discussion easy to follow as each point can be
... >picked up discretely.
... >
... >> Seems lazy too me.
... >>
... >> In fact I don't bother to read them anymore at the obvious cost of
... >> missing something .... but .. there you go :-)
... >
... >You are being intentionally ironic here. . . . .aren't you??
... >
... >
... >druidh

It does not make the discussion easy to follow as each point can be
picked up discretely. .. as you say ..

I have to read your segmented reply, then go back and read what you
are referring to which makes the post disjointed .... IMHO

Mike

Presumably
"Mike P" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Whats worse than top posting ... inline posting of course?

you're

Quoted message said:

There seems to an increase in the number of contributors to this group
who interleave/inline their replies in the original post. This just
makes their reply completely disjointed and just does not flow, plus
making difficult reading.
Seems lazy too me.

trolling

Quoted message said:

In fact I don't bother to read them anymore at the obvious cost of
missing something .... but .. there you go :-)

to

Quoted message said:

Have a look at below link below and scroll to " inline replies" if you
want another opinion .... otherwise Happy New Year !

go

Quoted message said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_posting

for
the
longest

Quoted message said:

Mike

post in 2005. May I just say, as far as i'm concerned, I don't really care
where people post, although putting *I agree* at the bottom of a 10kb
epistle is rather annoying.

Graham

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 09:17:39 +0000, Mike P <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Whats worse than top posting ... inline posting of course?

Bollox(tm)

Quoted message said:

There seems to an increase in the number of contributors to this group
who interleave/inline their replies in the original post.

You mean adding a reply at the point wehre its relevant to the
discussion... and continuing by snipping out irrelevancies?

Quoted message said:

Seems lazy too me.

Seems logical to me.

And hardly lazy since irrelvancies are sought out and removed,

Quoted message said:

In fact I don't bother to read them anymore at the obvious cost of
missing something .... but .. there you go :-)

Kewl, you'll not be reading this then?

Quoted message said:

Have a look at below link below and scroll to " inline replies" if you
want another opinion ....

Quoted message said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_posting

<snip transposed>

Quoted message said:

otherwise Happy New Year !

and to you too!!

BTW Mike, you failed to mention your preference ;-) but by a process
of elimination, since you dissed top-posting and inline-posting, I
surmise you prefer bottom posting? I quote from the web page you gave
reference to:

"Though the naïve response to "top-posting" might be to "bottom-post",
this implies that the only difference is that the response comes at
the bottom of all the quoted material instead of atop it. This is also
problematic, since if the quoted material is large, it is just as much
trouble to scan for relevant material before reading the reply."

From the same source:

Re. Inline Replies:
"The preferred - by some - means of replying is to trim the quoted
material so that only the relevant parts needed for context remain,
and reply underneath each one in a natural discussion style."

Much more fun reading a [TR] and seeing replies /in context/!!



Wonder if I should take up horse riding in the new year?

So, If I put my "segmented reply" above the point I'm referring to,
wold that make it easier for you?

druidh

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 09:46:02 +0000, Mike P <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 09:37:41 GMT, druidh
<[email hidden]> wrote:

.. >Mike P wrote:

Quoted message said:

.. >You are being intentionally ironic here. . . . .aren't you??
.. >
.. >
.. >druidh

Quoted message said:

It does not make the discussion easy to follow as each point can be
picked up discretely. .. as you say ..

If you're so concerned with making

Quoted message said:

I have to read your segmented reply, then go back and read what you
are referring to which makes the post disjointed .... IMHO

a post less disjointed why do you use a non-standard delimiter when
quoting? As I'm sure you know, quoted material is most often denoted
with a few specific characters which can then be flagged a different
colour to highlight quotes within a post . Using a non-standard
character suggests someone who wants to disrupt what others read.

Its the same with bottom-posting, especially when several dozen lines
are needlessly requoted for the addition for a single line.

Methinks you are A. Pane, and I claim my £25.00

The message <[email hidden]>
from druidh <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Mike P said:

Whats worse than top posting ... inline posting of course?

No of course about it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There seems to an increase in the number of contributors to this group
who interleave/inline their replies in the original post. This just
makes their reply completely disjointed and just does not flow, plus
making difficult reading.

Quoted message said:

Nope - it makes the discussion easy to follow as each point can be
picked up discretely.

For once I seem to be in agreement with Druidh. :-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Seems lazy too me.

Takes more time an effort, particularly if the respondent has edited
sensibly as well.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In fact I don't bother to read them anymore at the obvious cost of
missing something .... but .. there you go :-)

Quoted message said:

You are being intentionally ironic here. . . . .aren't you??

He could just be trolling but I get the feeling his misguided views are
genuine but based on limited experience of this ng. I don't recognise
his basic premise nor his moniker as a regular contributor to this ng.
Indeed I think much the reverse has happened over the years. What is
nearly as bad as top posting is something that is routinely part of top
posting - repeating the whole of the message being responded to rather
the editing it down to the relevant points.

--
Roger Chapman so far this year 62 summits
New - 28 (Marilyns 14, Nuttalls 5, Outlying Fells 10)
Repeats - 34 (Marilyns 16, Nuttalls 24, Wainwrights 12, Outlying Fells 0)

Message-ID: <[email hidden]> from SteveO
contained the following:

Quoted message said:

Wonder if I should take up horse riding in the new year?

with a shotgun?

--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/

Geoff Berrow said:

Message-ID: <[email hidden]> from SteveO
contained the following:

Quoted message said:

Wonder if I should take up horse riding in the new year?

with a shotgun?

:-)

:-) :-)

hehehehehe

/with apologies for the [unavoidable] bottom-posting !!
;-)

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 10:31:17 GMT, Roger <[email hidden]>
wrote:

<snipped>

... >
... >He could just be trolling but I get the feeling his misguided views are
... >genuine but based on limited experience of this ng. I don't recognise
... >his basic premise nor his moniker as a regular contributor to this ng.
... >Indeed I think much the reverse has happened over the years. What is
... >nearly as bad as top posting is something that is routinely part of top
... >posting - repeating the whole of the message being responded to rather
... >the editing it down to the relevant points.

I have possibly been lurking and contributing to this NG longer than
you! I think it was about 1995 when I got a my first pc courtesey of
Mr Sugar. I used to contribute alot in the early days, hence I see the
different style of posting creeping in.
I can still see my old posts on Google ... will they ever go?
I think Stevo asked if I preferred top or bottom posting. I use Free
Agent and prefer top posting .. but I bow to the wishes of the masses.
..... and a troll I am not :-)

Mike P

Hey Roger - I can't recall us regularly disagreeing (short term memory
loss due to old age on my part?)

And on the subkect of posting and quoting, anyone know how to get
Google Groups to quote the prevoious post (without cut and paste
obviously).

druidh
(stuck at work and typing frantically to make it look like I'm busy!)

druidh said:

Hey Roger - I can't recall us regularly disagreeing (short term memory
loss due to old age on my part?)

And on the subkect of posting and quoting, anyone know how to get
Google Groups to quote the prevoious post (without cut and paste
obviously).

druidh
(stuck at work and typing frantically to make it look like I'm busy!)

Ah - forget that last bit. I just found a way to do it.

druidh

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 10:46:52 +0000, Mike P <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 10:31:17 GMT, Roger <[email hidden]>
wrote:

<snipped>

Hey, you snipped!!!!

That's not fair, that's out of character with me trying to consider
you as a nasty pasty!!

Mebbes I'll have to revise me position ;-)

Quoted message said:

I can still see my old posts on Google ... will they ever go?

Nope.

Quoted message said:

I think Stevo asked if I preferred top or bottom posting. I use Free
Agent and prefer top posting .. but I bow to the wishes of the masses.

I'll have a Guiness please :-)

Quoted message said:

.... and a troll I am not :-)

Kewl.
(as well as a relief actually)

D'you want your 25 quid back wot like since you're not a bad egg
arterall?

--
SteveO

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 11:21:58 +0000, SteveO wrote:

<snipped>

... >Kewl.
... >(as well as a relief actually)
... >
... >D'you want your 25 quid back wot like since you're not a bad egg
... >arterall?

Never sent it .... cos you were wrong .. :-) .. and still wondering
where it will all end after reading the crampon/frozen grass thread ..
and SOME people thought I WAS a troll .. ha ha... jeeez

Mike P

"Mike P" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Whats worse than top posting ... inline posting of course?

Horlicks!

Quoted message said:

There seems to an increase in the number of contributors to this group
who interleave/inline their replies in the original post.

Count me among them. It's established and accepted netiquette. You can see
instantly the exact point the poster is replying to. The only problem is
with people who quote too much of the previous post. I favour <snip>ing
which is what I'm going to do to the rest of the tripe you posted.

<snip>

Cheers, Jiffy

In message <[email hidden]>

Roger said:

The message <[email hidden]>
from druidh <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Mike P wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There seems to an increase in the number of contributors to this group
who interleave/inline their replies in the original post. This just
makes their reply completely disjointed and just does not flow, plus
making difficult reading.

Quoted message said:

Nope - it makes the discussion easy to follow as each point can be
picked up discretely.

For once I seem to be in agreement with Druidh. :-)

Definitely. The only reason I've thought of for anyone not interleaving
posts (or just bottom posting if it's a short one that they're replying
to) is laziness, or really bad news client. It's very east to scroll
down through a post, picking up the flow of a conversation, even if you
jump into it in the middle of a thread (and people have been sensible with
the quoting). Any half-decent newsreader will colour different levels of
replies differently (even OE can with the help of QuoteFix).

The flow of conversation is also far clearer. You don't have to re-explain
each point you're replying to. For example:

The answer to your first question is Thursday, the answer to the second is
2pm.

Quoted message said:

What day is it? What's the time

Or, for an interleaved post:

Quoted message said:

What day is it?

Tuesday

Quoted message said:

What's the time?

2pm

A well-written interleaved post can be read through without any jumping
about, without being delayed by any quoting whatsoever, but it's there and
in the right place to be immediately of relevence to the text that follows.

Plain bottom posting (OK, I'm doing that here, bear with me!) in reply to
large amounts of uncut text is no better than top posting. There were good
reasons for interleaved posting being adopted in the days before MS came
along and messed things up, and they still hold true.

--
Simon Challands

In message <[email hidden]>

SteveO said:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 10:46:52 +0000, Mike P <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I can still see my old posts on Google ... will they ever go?

Nope.

If x-no-archive is set in the header then Google (or any other news
archive) shouldn't keep them. I think Google holds them for 14 days if
you do that.

--
Simon Challands

The message <[email hidden]>
from Mike P <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

... >
... >He could just be trolling but I get the feeling his misguided views are
... >genuine but based on limited experience of this ng. I don't recognise
... >his basic premise nor his moniker as a regular contributor to this ng.
... >Indeed I think much the reverse has happened over the years. What is
... >nearly as bad as top posting is something that is routinely part of top
... >posting - repeating the whole of the message being responded to rather
... >the editing it down to the relevant points.

Quoted message said:

I have possibly been lurking and contributing to this NG longer than
you! I think it was about 1995 when I got a my first pc courtesey of
Mr Sugar. I used to contribute alot in the early days, hence I see the
different style of posting creeping in.

Date of first computer would seem rather irrelevant. I had mine back in
1982 and an account on Micronet for some years but Usenet I didn't join
till 1996.

Quoted message said:

I can still see my old posts on Google ... will they ever go?

Probably not but as you don't say which Mike you were in your previous
incarnations the rest of us may never know. Google (or more probably
Deja before it) has lost all my early postings to this ng and quite
possibly some of the few contributions I made to ursay during 1996.
However if you are Mike Peters (and that is the only Mike P I can find)
Google has it that your first uk.rec.walking post was on 27th December.
Curiously that was later in the same thread as my first extant posting
in this ng. However there may be more than one Mike Peters (who had an
extensive posting history before December 1996) just as there are more
than one Roger Chapman on Usenet.

Quoted message said:

I think Stevo asked if I preferred top or bottom posting. I use Free
Agent and prefer top posting .. but I bow to the wishes of the masses.
..... and a troll I am not :-)

Curiouser and curiouser back in 1996 you would probably have been
crucified for top posting.

--
Roger Chapman so far this year 62 summits
New - 28 (Marilyns 14, Nuttalls 5, Outlying Fells 10)
Repeats - 34 (Marilyns 16, Nuttalls 24, Wainwrights 12, Outlying Fells 0)

The message <[email hidden]>
from "druidh" <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Hey Roger - I can't recall us regularly disagreeing (short term memory
loss due to old age on my part?)

That perhaps is because I don't always respond just because I don't
agree with you but of late (and I too am feeling the effects of anno
Domini) we do seem to be on opposite sides of the fence fairly often.
For instance I would have agreed with Len but you find that approach
elitist rather than self reliant.

Quoted message said:

And on the subkect of posting and quoting, anyone know how to get
Google Groups to quote the prevoious post (without cut and paste
obviously).

Sorry, never use it, at least not for posting.

Quoted message said:

druidh
(stuck at work and typing frantically to make it look like I'm busy!)

Work? Waszat then? :-)

--
Roger Chapman so far this year 62 summits
New - 28 (Marilyns 14, Nuttalls 5, Outlying Fells 10)
Repeats - 34 (Marilyns 16, Nuttalls 24, Wainwrights 12, Outlying Fells 0)