Joseph Meehan wrote:
> I see a number of people who feel that top posting is some sort of sin
> against God. I suggest that you grow up. You are sounding like school boys
> who mock those who are not part of their group.
> There is no recognized authority which has declared top or bottom
> posting as correct. For the most part I will guess most people don't even
> make a conscious decision. They use what their mail reader used by default.
> If there is any "authority" on the subject, it must be Microsoft, as
> they are the biggest in the business, and they have chosen to use top
> posting in their OE product.
> Personally I believe the sender should choose, and they do. I believe
> there are times when top posting is the most efficient and other times it is
> not. I try to use whichever is best for conveying the message. Maybe you
> should try that.
actually i'm sure microsoft had very little to do with news groups when
they first came out. And just because you use a lazy piece of ****
program, doesn't mean you can't over come it and post where netique
already has made standards for.
> "Joseph Meehan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:IWVEb.24698$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> I see a number of people who feel that top posting is some sort
>> of sin against God. I suggest that you grow up. You are sounding
>> like school boys who mock those who are not part of their group.
>> There is no recognized authority which has declared top or bottom
>> posting as correct. For the most part I will guess most people
>> don't even make a conscious decision. They use what their mail
>> reader used by default.
>> If there is any "authority" on the subject, it must be
>> Microsoft, as they are the biggest in the business, and they have
>> chosen to use top posting in their OE product.
>> Personally I believe the sender should choose, and they do. I
>> believe there are times when top posting is the most efficient and
>> other times it is not. I try to use whichever is best for conveying
>> the message. Maybe you should try that.
>> Joseph E. Meehan<<
> I suppose that there are those who also think that driving on the
> 'correct' side of the road is also a heinous 'sin' - so that don't do
> that, either....(especially after a few drinks)
Which side of the road is correct. For me it depends on which side of
the pond I am on.
> Similarly, there are those who have abandoned paragraphs, spelling and
> punctuation - presumably in the misguided belief that their
> idiosyncratic offerings indicate individuality, rather than
In many cases it is because they don't know spelling, typing or
punctuation. However that does not make their message less valid or
important. The message is what is important not the form of the message.
> It's all about a common standard - based upon the most sensible and
> logical way of doing things.
I agree. And the most sensible and logical way of doing it may be top
posting some of the time and bottom other times. As you may have noticed I
bottom posted this time since it made more sense.
> Even in Ireland, it's rare to see a donkey sitting comfortably in the
> cart while its owner sweats between the shafts...........
When was the last time you saw as donkey pulling a cart if Ireland?
Joseph E. Meehan
26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 09:16:39 GMT, "Mike" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>It would be interesting to how many of this groups posters are paid to do
>the rubbish job. I'm certain the manufacturers lurk here and instruct to
>counter bad publicity. It must be one of the cheapest ways to do it.
So... you are saying that George Preddy is really being paid to sell
Canons??? Wouldn't they get better value for money by getting him to
"evangelise" for Nikon or Sony? Actually, I think it's simply a thing
that some of us get passionate about, in the same way that others get
passionate about their favorite sporting teams for example. Besides,
when was the last time you came across a PR/Marketing type who would
use the kind of language the groups evangelists do in describing a
>What occurs to me is why hasn't the Sony 828 been fully reveiwed, it was
>announced on the 17th of December. If Sony had production problems it may
>have paid them to tell the public why, instead of leaving it to speculation.
I suspect this is due to problems with the new sensor, or more likely
the firmware code to do the interpolation of the output coming from
it. DPReview has had a preview of the camera up sometime ago, yet at
Sony's request did not post any sample images which would imply they
would not have made a good advert for the camera, even if the
developmental status taken into account. It is, in effect, a new
varient of the Bayer sensor and so will need a new varient of the
Bayer interpolation algorithms to produce the output image. It could
well be that F828s have been sitting on the shelves in large numbers
for a while waiting for firmware that could get the most out of the
sensor. Now that code has arrived the F828 is hitting shelves and
reviews simultaneously, but obviously it's going to take a few days to
do a good (and fair) review.
>On the other hand it could be that when Cannon came up with the Rebel/300d
>they had to do some quick thinking to reduce manufacturing costs, who knows.
>For me, it puts a big question mark on the 828. Note how the other cameras
>with similar build profile are being off loaded to clear the decks for the
>next generation of procumers cameras similar to the 828.
Definately a contributing factor. The EOS-300D seems to have caught a
lot of vendors out; witness the freefall some of the prosumer model
prices have been in since as they try and find their new "price the
market will bear"
>Well that's my opinion.
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:25:17 -0000, "Marc" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>Similarly, there are those who have abandoned paragraphs, spelling and
>punctuation - presumably in the misguided belief that their idiosyncratic
>offerings indicate individuality, rather than illiteracy.
Talking of "idiosyncratic offerings", the most infuriating style I've
come across is one whose abuser claims he does it for "individuality"
funnily enough. Basically, It Is Someone Who Posts With Perfect
Grammar And Spelling, Apart From The Fact That He Uses A Capital
Letter On Every Word, Like This Sentence. Not only does it become
incredibly difficult to read after more than a single sentence, but
what is worse it would appear his English teacher has accepted this as
an "idiosyncracy" and not held him back until he actually learns it is
not acceptable. As a result of this "endorsement" what started out as
a simple on-line quirk has now extended to his entire writing output,
even with pen and paper.
I mean, seriously, what potential recruiter is going to wade through
an entire C.V. of that when the kid come to look for a job in a few
years time? Or the girl who submitted an entire essay in mobile phone
"Text speak" or whatever it's called, because *she* found it easier to
write... presumably with a pen or proper keyboard. With "educators"
like this, is it any wonder that our literacy skills have fallen
through the floor?
Let's face it, if this kind of abuse of accepted grammatical standards
doesn't get an automatic "F - See me!" grade, then what hope does a
mere convention like "not top posting on Usenet" have?
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> In message <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)otforme (Charlie Self) wrote:
> >That isn't even an analogy. Note above, "there is no recognized
> >bottom posting. Note, too, the next time you drive on the wrong side of
> >road, how quickly some "authorized authority" shows up. At least we all
> >does, before you do damage. There is no probable damage beyond slight
> >with top posting.
> There *is* damage from top-posting that quotes the entire previous post.
> It wastes space on newsservers, and causes billions of unnecessary bytes
> to pass through the internet each day, robbing efficient communications
> of bandwidth.
But the original analogy to driving on the wrong side of the road is
extreme...people aren't going to get killed and lawyers don't have to get
involved as a result of top-posting.
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> In message <IWVEb.24698$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> "Joseph Meehan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > If there is any "authority" on the subject, it must be Microsoft, as
> >they are the biggest in the business, and they have chosen to use top
> >posting in their OE product.
> Microsoft is a Johnny-come-lately to usenet, who, along with AOL, have
> destroyed it. The people who wrote OE probably never even heard of
> usenet before being put on the project, as it is about the worst
> newsreader known to man. OE defaults remove all logic and efficiency
> from usenet.
Well, in fairness to MS, they didn't write OE...they simply purchased it and
integrated it into IE.
"Drifter" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> Oh don't start that waste of time argument again.
> >"Tony Spadaro" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >news:U1UEb.142750$(E-Mail Removed) r.com...
> >> Has somebody stepped on the poor little boy's feelings?<
> >You do a lot of top-posting, do you?...
> Oh don't start that waste of time argument again.
> There, now everyone can be annoyed
Got something against it , Ace?
Cuase if you do, that sure is tough.