On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 10:42:25 +0100, "Jonathan Gogan"
wrote:


MoonMan
I only bottom post, because if you don't you get shouted at. If people
snipped irrelevant text it would not be such a problem, but they don't and
I
get ****ed off by having to scroll down through reams of stuff I have read
before to find a 1 line silly comment at the bottom. if it was top posted
life would be much simpler!

As I said before, it is only laziness on your part which prefers top
posting.



Alex:
Only if you are not interested in the context.
I quite agree that there are too many people who don't snip properly,
but that is actually seen more in top posters than bottom.
If you are actually interested in the context, then top posting is
*much* harder to read, because you have to skip backwards and
forwards.

--
Alex
In a threaded newsreader it is actually very easy, in fat *simplest* to
maintain context
by snipping ALL prior tezt and inserting only the new post.

RUBBISH.

Almost *all* newsreaders are threaded. Yours is not among the better
ones, but that is irrelevant.

By doing it your way, we would have to skip back and forth between
messages to understand what is going on, which is just ridiculous.

Among the hundreds of thousands of people posting to usenet, I doubt
if there are more than a few dozen (AT MOST) who would agree with you
here.

Context is maintained by the threading (as it is designed to be!).

If it were "designed to be" maintained by threading, then you would
find people would use it that way.

They don't because that quite simply does not work at all.


The only advantage of editing the post (snip a bit, leave a bit etc.)
is if the threading context is lost, e.g. a google search 5 years later..

Actually, that is the exact reverse of the truth, since google
searches usually return a large chunk of the thread as a single item.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
UNIX is a computer virus with a user interface.

To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom