Re: Anyone ride through the 1st Ave tunnel by the UN?

"Bill Sornson" <askme@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:4735dba5$0$8627$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Jeff Grippe wrote:
>> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:JM2dnS7ApLu-dananZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>> ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!
>>>
>>
>> It's very interesting that you should say that again. I have joined a
>> Yahoo newsgroup where top posting is pretty much the way it is done.
>> Everyone seems to top post all the time. I don't think that they are
>> all idiots but you never can tell.
>
> Is it truly a "newsgroup" like this (Usenet) or one of many "Yahoo! 
> Groups" like our local mountain biking list?  Almost every member 
> top-replies on that, too, because it's e-mail based for most and even
the 
> online version just puts the latest post at the top.
>
> The reason top-posting is stupid on a /newsgroup/ is mainly because it's

> "threaded", not individual messages.
>
> Bill "if all else fails, ask Michael Press" S.
>
Well, FWIW, I claim the to be the voice of someone who has been doing this

for a really long time. My experience with threaded conversations goes
back 
to the days of BBS's and modems. When I started on my first chat BBS the 
best modem you could buy was 1200 baud. I actually go back to 110/300 baud

and acoustic couplers but I didn't use those for threaded conversations.
As 
a though experiment, however, top-posting would have been far superior on
a 
KSR-33.

Although the conversations were threaded, most regular readers already
knew 
what the previous messages were. Anyone who wanted to join the thread
could 
either start at the beginning or jump right in.

The rules that made sense back then (and still do to my way of thinking)
is 
that you would top post if your reply was a response to the entire message

that preceded it. OTOH, you would insert your text into the message if you

were responding point by point.

This message could just have easily been top-posted with no lack of
clarity. 
You could still follow the thread by reading what is below it or by
reading 
the previous message.

I would say that to top post a point by point rebuttal is not such a great

idea but otherwise, it works as well as bottom posting. My point has
always 
been that it isn't an all or nothing thing. Top posting isn't always evil 
and bottom posting isn't always better.

Jeff