|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Garmin GPS > November 2006 > Posting - off the subject
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Posting - off the subject
|
|
| Michael Ridenhour 2006-11-26, 10:33 am |
|
From: "HOHDAVE" <dkl.pearson@gmail.com>
Subject: Posting - off the subject
Date: Sunday, November 26, 2006 10:09 AM
Hi all,
I know many of you don't realized this but when you bottom post, you
make it harder for people who are blind and have program that read the
e-mail for them. I was told that it is difficult to maneuver the
program to find the message the writer wrote.
For courtesy for people who are blind and hard of hear/deaf, please top
post...
Thanks
David Pearson
Marysville, WA
| |
|
| Michael Ridenhour wrote:
> From: "HOHDAVE" <dkl.pearson@gmail.com>
> Subject: Posting - off the subject
> Date: Sunday, November 26, 2006 10:09 AM
>
> Hi all,
>
> I know many of you don't realized this but when you bottom post, you
> make it harder for people who are blind and have program that read the
> e-mail for them. I was told that it is difficult to maneuver the
> program to find the message the writer wrote.
>
> For courtesy for people who are blind and hard of hear/deaf, please
> top post...
>
> Thanks
>
> David Pearson
> Marysville, WA
Newsgroup Usenet convention is mostly bottom posting for replies. If
everyone would agree to top posting it could work but most replies are
bottom posted. Makes sense to me to read from the top down. For whatever
reason a lot of Microsoft NGs do top post.
Some folks will follow the thread as it is. If the first reply is top posted
some will follow along. Worst situation is when there are top and bottom
posts in same thread.
Let's see how this thread progresses.
| |
| Steve Calvin 2006-11-26, 12:33 pm |
| DanR wrote:[color=darkred
]
> Michael Ridenhour wrote:
Net standards are to bottom post. They've been that way
since it's inception. I seriously doubt your claim and would
like to see some proof and documentation.
Any developer writing software to interpret usenet posts
would know what the accepted standards of the medium is and
would write software to interpret appropriately.
This seems like it's just a very lame ploy to support the
top-posting argument, which has been fought many times in
many places and the "old standard" typically survives.
--
Steve
| |
| John Richards 2006-11-26, 12:33 pm |
| Many Usenet posters tend to be fervent followers of one posting convention,
and will loudly complain if a poster uses the opposite convention.
I'm flexible and tend to use whatever the majority in a given newsgroup
seems comfortable with. There are pros and cons for both conventions.
John Richards
"Michael Ridenhour" <ocie@medbush.net> wrote in message news:C6jah.64$Dw5.39@newsfe16.lga...
>
> From: "HOHDAVE" <dkl.pearson@gmail.com>
> Subject: Posting - off the subject
> Date: Sunday, November 26, 2006 10:09 AM
>
> Hi all,
>
> I know many of you don't realized this but when you bottom post, you
> make it harder for people who are blind and have program that read the
> e-mail for them. I was told that it is difficult to maneuver the
> program to find the message the writer wrote.
>
> For courtesy for people who are blind and hard of hear/deaf, please top
> post...
>
> Thanks
>
> David Pearson
> Marysville, WA
| |
| Michael Ridenhour 2006-11-26, 3:33 pm |
| I guess you say to hell with the blind, as long as what you learned 20 years
is upheld. I didn't write the thread, just posted it from another source
because of the tight-butts who reside here.
Compassion must not be your strong point, dude.
MR
"Steve Calvin" <calvins@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:b%jah.138$5p.133@newsfe11.lga...
> DanR wrote:
>
> Net standards are to bottom post. They've been that way since it's
> inception. I seriously doubt your claim and would like to see some proof
> and documentation.
>
> Any developer writing software to interpret usenet posts would know what
> the accepted standards of the medium is and would write software to
> interpret appropriately.
>
> This seems like it's just a very lame ploy to support the top-posting
> argument, which has been fought many times in many places and the "old
> standard" typically survives.
>
>
> --
> Steve
| |
| Jack Erbes 2006-11-26, 3:33 pm |
| Michael Ridenhour wrote:
> From: "HOHDAVE" <dkl.pearson@gmail.com>
> Subject: Posting - off the subject
> Date: Sunday, November 26, 2006 10:09 AM
>
> Hi all,
>
> I know many of you don't realized this but when you bottom post, you
> make it harder for people who are blind and have program that read the
> e-mail for them. I was told that it is difficult to maneuver the
> program to find the message the writer wrote.
>
> For courtesy for people who are blind and hard of hear/deaf, please top
> post...
>
Bullshit! There is no truth in that.
That would put them in the same place as the rest of us, finding an
answer followed by a question. And that does not make any sense.
You are undoubtedly a top posting advocate and trying to find some
desperate ploy to get the rest of the world to do it wrong too.
Jack
--
Jack Erbes in Ellsworth, Maine, USA (jackerbes at adelphia dot net)
(also receiving email at jacker at midmaine dot com)
| |
| Steve Calvin 2006-11-26, 3:33 pm |
| Michael Ridenhour wrote:
> I guess you say to hell with the blind, as long as what you learned 20 years
> is upheld. I didn't write the thread, just posted it from another source
> because of the tight-butts who reside here.
>
> Compassion must not be your strong point, dude.
>
> MR
No, I just want to see your proof instead of "someone told
me...". Do you know how many lame falsehoods are passed on
that way? Probably 99% of the crap that "people say" or is
on the "net". I think you should learn to have facts to back
up your positions instead of spouting hearsay and
badmouthing people who want facts to back this kind of crap up.
--
Steve
| |
| Jack Erbes 2006-11-26, 3:33 pm |
| Michael Ridenhour wrote:
> I guess you say to hell with the blind, as long as what you learned 20 years
> is upheld. I didn't write the thread, just posted it from another source
> because of the tight-butts who reside here.
>
> Compassion must not be your strong point, dude.
You read it on the net so it has to be true? I have no compassion for
idiots that would post what you did. Prove it or go away.
<snip>
Jack
--
Jack Erbes in Ellsworth, Maine, USA (jackerbes at adelphia dot net)
(also receiving email at jacker at midmaine dot com)
| |
| Broadback 2006-11-27, 4:33 am |
| Jack Erbes wrote:
> Michael Ridenhour wrote:
>
> Bullshit! There is no truth in that.
>
> That would put them in the same place as the rest of us, finding an
> answer followed by a question. And that does not make any sense.
>
> You are undoubtedly a top posting advocate and trying to find some
> desperate ploy to get the rest of the world to do it wrong too.
>
> Jack
>
I am deaf, so I can speak with some authority that being so makes
absolutely no difference to top or bottom posting. If I was blind I
would not be able to see either top or bottom posting, so I cannot see
that making any difference either.
| |
| John Richards 2006-11-27, 3:33 pm |
| "Broadback" <wen@towill.plus.com> wrote in message news:4svrltF11kfsmU1
@mid.individual.net...
> If I was blind I
> would not be able to see either top or bottom posting, so I cannot see
> that making any difference either.
I'm not blind either, but I can easily surmise why bottom posting
is a bit of a nuisance to blind people who must use a screen reader
program. The screen reader has to vocalize all the top quoted text
before it gets to the bottom (new) text, which may take a considerable
amount of time. For us sighted folks, we can glance and scroll down
quickly, but I routinely skip posts where the new text can't be seen
in the first screen.
--
John Richards
| |
| quietguy 2006-11-27, 3:33 pm |
| Me too - that is why I am courteous enough to top post whenever I can
David
John Richards wrote:
> For us sighted folks, we can glance and scroll down
> quickly, but I routinely skip posts where the new text can't be seen
> in the first screen.
>
> --
> John Richards
| |
| Keith G. Powell 2006-11-27, 3:33 pm |
|
"John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote in message
news:XbHah.31310$yl4.30515@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> "Broadback" <wen@towill.plus.com> wrote in message
> news:4svrltF11kfsmU1
@mid.individual.net...
>
> I'm not blind either, but I can easily surmise why bottom posting
> is a bit of a nuisance to blind people who must use a screen reader
> program. The screen reader has to vocalize all the top quoted text
> before it gets to the bottom (new) text, which may take a considerable
> amount of time. For us sighted folks, we can glance and scroll down
> quickly, but I routinely skip posts where the new text can't be seen
> in the first screen.
>
> --
> John Richards
What is needed is a button to press in the news reader toolbar to reorder
the lines of text from top to botom posting(and vice versa).
Keith G. powell
| |
| Steve Calvin 2006-11-27, 3:33 pm |
| quietguy wrote:
> Me too - that is why I am courteous enough to top post whenever I can
>
> David
>
> John Richards wrote:
>
>
I *still* say, any programmer who was going to undertake a
speech program for usenet for the blind would be smart
enough to "skip" parts of posts that had marks indicating
that they were quotes from prior posts. If not, they aren't
much of a programmer.
This arguement is BOGUS. I've still seen *no* *PROOF* of
what this "person" is spouting. So far, it's just "someone
told me". Yeah, I'm going to take that as fact.
--
Steve
| |
| Michael Ridenhour 2006-11-27, 3:33 pm |
| The issue is not a disability, it is a specific disability. As a deaf man
you are not reliant upon a scan to speech program to read posts, you can
simple scroll down to the end of a posting. I would hope you are not as
selfish and mean spitited as the other advocates of bottom feeding , excuse
me, bottom READING, who post so agressively here, however.
Bilnd people depend on the good graces of others, a noticeable lack from
some who post here.
Michael
"Broadback" <wen@towill.plus.com> wrote in message
news:4svrltF11kfsmU1
@mid.individual.net...
> Jack Erbes wrote:
> I am deaf, so I can speak with some authority that being so makes
> absolutely no difference to top or bottom posting. If I was blind I would
> not be able to see either top or bottom posting, so I cannot see that
> making any difference either.
| |
| Jack Erbes 2006-11-27, 10:33 pm |
| Michael Ridenhour wrote:
> The issue is not a disability, it is a specific disability. As a deaf man
> you are not reliant upon a scan to speech program to read posts, you can
> simple scroll down to the end of a posting. I would hope you are not as
> selfish and mean spitited as the other advocates of bottom feeding , excuse
> me, bottom READING, who post so agressively here, however.
> Bilnd people depend on the good graces of others, a noticeable lack from
> some who post here.
>
> Michael
And what if a blind person wanted to hear the questions and then the
answers? Have you no compassion for the blind people with logical
minds? My heart cries out for all blind people. Even the illogical
ones that need to learn that the orderly and systematic way to read the
questions and then the answers.
But it does not cry out to you and your childish attempts to ameliorate
an otherwise logical and satisfactory process. Creating a bogus fairy
tale story as an attempt at a plausible reason for doing it your way and
then trying to shame people into doing is simply silly. And wrong.
If you walked into a room and someone was speaking to a group, and you
heard them say something that you wanted to comment on, wouldn't you
feel a need to sort of get up to speed on the background of the
conversation before you participated?
Go fix something that is broken, bottom posting is not broken.
Jack
--
Jack Erbes in Ellsworth, Maine, USA (jackerbes at adelphia dot net)
(also receiving email at jacker at midmaine dot com)
| |
| Michael Ridenhour 2006-11-27, 10:33 pm |
| Keep your silly conventions, nobody cares. Most folks have compassion for
others, even if you don't.
Michael
"Jack Erbes" <jackerbes@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:rOGdnUkQKcav8fb
YnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@ad
elphia.com...
> Michael Ridenhour wrote:
>
> And what if a blind person wanted to hear the questions and then the
> answers? Have you no compassion for the blind people with logical minds?
> My heart cries out for all blind people. Even the illogical ones that
> need to learn that the orderly and systematic way to read the questions
> and then the answers.
>
> But it does not cry out to you and your childish attempts to ameliorate an
> otherwise logical and satisfactory process. Creating a bogus fairy tale
> story as an attempt at a plausible reason for doing it your way and then
> trying to shame people into doing is simply silly. And wrong.
>
> If you walked into a room and someone was speaking to a group, and you
> heard them say something that you wanted to comment on, wouldn't you feel
> a need to sort of get up to speed on the background of the conversation
> before you participated?
>
> Go fix something that is broken, bottom posting is not broken.
>
> Jack
>
> --
> Jack Erbes in Ellsworth, Maine, USA (jackerbes at adelphia dot net)
> (also receiving email at jacker at midmaine dot com)
| |
| Steve Calvin 2006-11-27, 10:33 pm |
| Michael Ridenhour wrote:
> Keep your silly conventions, nobody cares. Most folks have compassion for
> others, even if you don't.
>
> Michael
Proof please
--
Steve
| |
|
| Michael Ridenhour wrote:
> From: "HOHDAVE" <dkl.pearson@gmail.com>
> Subject: Posting - off the subject
> Date: Sunday, November 26, 2006 10:09 AM
>
> Hi all,
>
> I know many of you don't realized this but when you bottom post, you
> make it harder for people who are blind and have program that read the
> e-mail for them. I was told that it is difficult to maneuver the
> program to find the message the writer wrote.
>
> For courtesy for people who are blind and hard of hear/deaf, please
> top post...
>
> Thanks
>
> David Pearson
> Marysville, WA
I'm wondering how a thread that progresses from bottom to top can make any
sense when reading that thread top to bottom. Seems like reading chapters of
a story in reverse order. If a text to speech program starts at the top of a
top posted thread the surprise ending is revealed before the plot thickens.
But... re-reading the OP the OP did say "email". And it's my experience that
almost all (maybe all) the email I receive that has replies (and multiple
replies) is indeed top posted. (latest replies are at the top) This makes
sense to me as most of the time I've been part of the email exchange and am
mainly interested in that last reply.
| |
| John Richards 2006-11-27, 10:33 pm |
| "DanR" <dhr22@sorrynospam.com> wrote in message news:7aNah.10369$yE6.290@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> I'm wondering how a thread that progresses from bottom to top can make any
> sense when reading that thread top to bottom. Seems like reading chapters of
> a story in reverse order. If a text to speech program starts at the top of a
> top posted thread the surprise ending is revealed before the plot thickens.
> But... re-reading the OP the OP did say "email". And it's my experience that
> almost all (maybe all) the email I receive that has replies (and multiple
> replies) is indeed top posted. (latest replies are at the top) This makes
> sense to me as most of the time I've been part of the email exchange and am
> mainly interested in that last reply.
I don't find Usenet posts all that different from an email that has been
commented on and forwarded by several respondents. With email,
nobody questions top posting. If I've been following a given Usenet thread,
I'm familiar with what was discussed previously, and I generally don't
need to read more than a few words (if any) of the quoted text.
People with very short attention spans, however, might be better served
by bottom posting.
--
John Richards
| |
| Steve Calvin 2006-11-27, 10:33 pm |
| John Richards wrote:
<snip>
> People with very short attention spans, however, might be better served
> by bottom posting.
>
Snipping out what you're not replying to is another part of
the complex puzzle, that most people can't comprehend either.
--
Steve
| |
| Michael Ridenhour 2006-11-28, 4:33 am |
| Exactly.
Thanks for agreeing with me. Some of these guys don't understand the issues,
apparently.
Michael
"Steve Calvin" <calvins@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:PxLah.77$QB1.57@newsfe09.lga...
> Michael Ridenhour wrote:
>
> Proof please
>
> --
> Steve
| |
|
| This guy asks for consideration for blind people and is accused of some
conspiracy against 20 year old rules of usenet?
Hey pencil-necked geeks, other people besides nerds with pocket guards can
use the internet these days. Even the blind.
Artis
"DanR" <dhr22@sorrynospam.com> wrote in message
news:7aNah.10369$yE6.290@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> Michael Ridenhour wrote:
>
> I'm wondering how a thread that progresses from bottom to top can make any
> sense when reading that thread top to bottom. Seems like reading chapters
> of a story in reverse order. If a text to speech program starts at the top
> of a top posted thread the surprise ending is revealed before the plot
> thickens.
> But... re-reading the OP the OP did say "email". And it's my experience
> that almost all (maybe all) the email I receive that has replies (and
> multiple replies) is indeed top posted. (latest replies are at the top)
> This makes sense to me as most of the time I've been part of the email
> exchange and am mainly interested in that last reply.
>
>
| |
| Jack Erbes 2006-11-28, 10:33 pm |
| artis wrote:
> This guy asks for consideration for blind people and is accused of some
> conspiracy against 20 year old rules of usenet?
>
> Hey pencil-necked geeks, other people besides nerds with pocket guards can
> use the internet these days. Even the blind.
>
> Artis
My goodness, such eloquence. Now back it up with some proof that there
is such a problem. The guy has a fetish against people that bottom post
and wants them to stop. He is telling a lie! There is no such problem!
It is that simple.
And there is no "rule". It is a suggested point of etiquette that is
generally agreed to, no more no less. If you want to be wrong too, you
can top post.
Quite frankly, I think most of people that top post are simply to lazy
or lack the reading skills to read through a thread for content and then
put their reply at the bottom where it is both in sequence and context
for the next reader.
Of course, some of them are just self important pricks that don't want
to be bothered to do the reading.
Jack
--
Jack Erbes in Ellsworth, Maine, USA (jackerbes at adelphia dot net)
(also receiving email at jacker at midmaine dot com)
| |
| Dave S 2006-11-28, 10:33 pm |
| Jack Erbes wrote:
> Quite frankly, I think most of people that top post are simply to lazy
> or lack the reading skills to read through a thread for content and then
> put their reply at the bottom where it is both in sequence and context
> for the next reader.
>
> Jack
>
To quote someone, > My goodness, such eloquence.
I don't usually get involved in pissing contests, but I want to make a
point.
Has it occurred to you that those who prefer bottom posting have perhaps
become accustomed to a newsreader that can't do tree structures.
Those of us who use a modern newsreader have already read the question
in the previous posting, and therefore find it a waste of time to wade
through it again (and again and again - bottom posters also don't know
how to edit). The sequence and context have already been established for us.
Dave S.
| |
| Steve Calvin 2006-11-28, 10:33 pm |
| artis wrote:
> This guy asks for consideration for blind people and is accused of some
> conspiracy against 20 year old rules of usenet?
>
> Hey pencil-necked geeks, other people besides nerds with pocket guards can
> use the internet these days. Even the blind.
>
> Artis
>
No, I'm asking for PROOF of what he's spewing. Has anyone
noticed, none has bee forthcoming??
Can you READ?
--
Steve
| |
|
| Dave S <dabcschell@mts.not> wrote:
>Has it occurred to you that those who prefer bottom posting have perhaps
>become accustomed to a newsreader that can't do tree structures.
I prefer bottom-posting, or in-line responses. I use a
tree-capable newsreader.
>Those of us who use a modern newsreader have already read the question
>in the previous posting, and therefore find it a waste of time to wade
>through it again (and again and again - bottom posters also don't know
>how to edit). The sequence and context have already been established for us.
When? 20 seconds ago? A couple hours ago? Tomorrow? Last
week? I don't know about you, but I'd rather not have to navigate
a tree of responses to provide context, especially when a thread
gets large and "branchy." But I've spent the last 30 years dealing
with computers day in and day out, so don't want to spend more time
than necessary on any given computer task. YMMV.
--
Joel Plutchak
"Things just fall apart." - Now They'll Sleep (Belly)
| |
| artis 2006-11-29, 12:33 pm |
| I see, you are an anal geek, trying to relive the past, when you were strong
and people thought you were smart.
Grow up, dude.
Bottom posting is for people with too much time on their hands, who have a
very, very high opinion of themselves.
Artis
"Joel" <plutchak@see.headers> wrote in message
news:ekk83r$ft7$1@ba
dger.ncsa.uiuc.edu...
> Dave S <dabcschell@mts.not> wrote:
>
> I prefer bottom-posting, or in-line responses. I use a
> tree-capable newsreader.
>
>
> When? 20 seconds ago? A couple hours ago? Tomorrow? Last
> week? I don't know about you, but I'd rather not have to navigate
> a tree of responses to provide context, especially when a thread
> gets large and "branchy." But I've spent the last 30 years dealing
> with computers day in and day out, so don't want to spend more time
> than necessary on any given computer task. YMMV.
> --
> Joel Plutchak
>
> "Things just fall apart." - Now They'll Sleep (Belly)
| |
|
| Michael Ridenhour wrote:
> From: "HOHDAVE" <dkl.pearson@gmail.com>
> Subject: Posting - off the subject
> Date: Sunday, November 26, 2006 10:09 AM
>
> Hi all,
>
> I know many of you don't realized this but when you bottom post, you
> make it harder for people who are blind and have program that read the
> e-mail for them. I was told that it is difficult to maneuver the
> program to find the message the writer wrote.
>
> For courtesy for people who are blind and hard of hear/deaf, please
> top post...
>
> Thanks
>
> David Pearson
> Marysville, WA
It really doesn't matter what anyone thinks, says or does in this NG about
top / bottom posting. I suppose it's interesting to debate but I haven't
noticed anyone being persuaded to change their ways. And I'll bet my Nuvi no
one will.
| |
| Broadback 2006-11-30, 4:33 am |
| DanR wrote:
> Michael Ridenhour wrote:
>
> It really doesn't matter what anyone thinks, says or does in this NG about
> top / bottom posting. I suppose it's interesting to debate but I haven't
> noticed anyone being persuaded to change their ways. And I'll bet my Nuvi no
> one will.
>
>
Fair enough, I was a bottom poster, from now on I will top post, post me
your Nuvi please, thanks. ;-)
|
|
|
|
|