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

"Jeff Grippe" <jeff@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:13jhe9vbg89aiea@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "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.

I have been through these wars over the correct manner of posting messages

on Usenet many times and I weary of yet explaining it once again. And so I

won't, other than to say that you are wrong. Please read up on Netiquette 
which I believe may still be available on the Google Groups website. Tom 
Sherman will know about **** like this.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota