On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:09:35 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
wrote:

Sorry this post is not about Larry Parr's toenails, Sam Sloan's inability to
beat an 1800 player with the Damiano, or Bill Goichberg's single-handed
destruction of the American way of life.

It's about something of far greater importance -- my integrity as a usenet
poster.

I've recently been fileted and flambayed (forgive the intentional
misspelling) on a bridge newsgroup for "top-posting." I've never read
anything about that subject here. In fact I didn't even know what they were
talking about.

I was called "too stupid to be edsucated (sic) and too rude to consider
other people."

What do you guys think of top-posting, which I admit I do all the time. Is
it really rude, merely poor form, or just the favorite obsession of an
anal-retentive bridge player whose favorite vacation activity is helping his
sister remove mildew from the underside of her kitchen table? Am I wrong to
assume everyone who reads my posts only needs to see relevant stuff that's
gone before?

Am I a rude, stupid, unedsucated SOB or what?

Angelo DePalma

To demonstrate what happens when I top-post.
..Now you put your reply at the top.
And I answer replying to your reply
....Suppose you reply to a message
...which you sometimes do
....to which somebody has already replied
...by bottom-posting
...and with interspersed comments.
And my habit is to bottom-post.

----------------------

Top-posting is no better and no worse than bottom-posting. Top-posting
has the advantage that one immediately sees the complete reply in many
cases.
Messages become incomprehensible when these styles are mixed.
Therefore, one needs an agreement and the consensus seems to be that
bottom-posting is the better method. So that's what one does, usually
after others have pointed it out.

I think bottom posting is terrible.

Real men only toppost.

Jurgen

without ü

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 09:22:26 +0200, Jürgen R. wrote:

To demonstrate what happens when I top-post.
.Now you put your reply at the top.
And I answer replying to your reply
...Suppose you reply to a message
..which you sometimes do
...to which somebody has already replied
..by bottom-posting
..and with interspersed comments.
And my habit is to bottom-post.

----------------------

Top-posting is no better and no worse than bottom-posting. Top-posting
has the advantage that one immediately sees the complete reply in many
cases.
Messages become incomprehensible when these styles are mixed.
Therefore, one needs an agreement and the consensus seems to be that
bottom-posting is the better method. So that's what one does, usually
after others have pointed it out.

U¿ytkownik "Angelo DePalma" napisa³ w
wiadomo¶ci ...
What on earth am I talking about?

Angie and again you show your lack of good manners. If you were a polite
person then you wouldn`t toppost.

What the hell are you talking about ??

OR ---word of the week, what does it mean?

"Catalan" wrote in message
...


"Angelo DePalma" wrote in message
...

I've recently been fileted and flambayed (forgive the intentional
misspelling) on a bridge newsgroup for "top-posting."

Bid four no trump and see if you can bid a slam.

OR bid a Gerber 4 clubs over 1-no.

I play American weak 2s, where opening 2 clubs is a game force [but any
other 2 is weak, pre-emptive and looking to sacrifice] - the trick is
responder becoming even more artificial by cue-bidding to assess if there is
a slam, and responder's second bid of 3-no, can be decided to mean
'got-8+pts' or 'shuddup'.

But to speak on topic, top-posting like top-bidding, is useful when it makes
an introduction to a mass of detail which follows, especially if there is 5
feet of scrolling, and the only comment is 'right-on Brian' or 'huh?'

Phil

"Tom Klem" wrote in message
news4sYe.144045$Ji4.81016@fed1read03...
Personally,

I think it's alot easier to read the threads with top posting.

Except when you don't know what "it" is, and the poster refers to "it" which
turns out to be changing your socks during a tournament, and not how to beat
the Chelyabinsk by reading this book for 6 minutes, guaranteed! as was
suggested in the header.

You read the latest post, in a series of posts that (one would assume) you
have been following with some interest. If something is stated that
doesn't jibe with what you have previously read, you just page down, and
read the stuff previously posted, otherwise, you get the option of
skipping it without paging down and reading through thousands of words in
order to get to the beginning of the posters point..

Yeah, he said it. I have pointed out how stoooooooopid this is in my new
book, Chess Openings for Christians.

People who come unglued because you don't follow their predilections,
should remember one thing: the art of discussion is reasonable,
intelligent, well thought out discourse. Where you put that information is
fairly irrelevant.

As long as we all stay good friends, or as good friends as chess players can
get. That's the trouble with us - its like you meet another chess player and
think - I can beat you! Then he 'says' 1. e4 and you disagree immediately
with the *** and compete for centre-stage by playing 1....c5

Just because we are basically fighters doenn't mean we have any sense off
the board or 'plays well with others'. As my friend says, he likes playing
chess because 'you don't have to talk with the other son of a bitch'.

Another thing I hate is thread-drift, you know, you start reading about
top-posting hoping to learn how to do it [or wishing Louis Blair would] then
some idiot goes on and on and on about the American Civil war and pre-flames
Nick for his presumed attitude [doh!] which conclusively proves he is an
alien, and a low-rated one at that, though not so low as a lawyer.

Cordially, Phil

Tom Klem


Angelo DePalma wrote:
Sorry this post is not about Larry Parr's toenails, Sam Sloan's inability
to beat an 1800 player with the Damiano, or Bill Goichberg's
single-handed destruction of the American way of life.

It's about something of far greater importance -- my integrity as a
usenet poster.

I've recently been fileted and flambayed (forgive the intentional
misspelling) on a bridge newsgroup for "top-posting." I've never read
anything about that subject here. In fact I didn't even know what they
were talking about.

I was called "too stupid to be edsucated (sic) and too rude to consider
other people."

What do you guys think of top-posting, which I admit I do all the time.
Is it really rude, merely poor form, or just the favorite obsession of an
anal-retentive bridge player whose favorite vacation activity is helping
his sister remove mildew from the underside of her kitchen table? Am I
wrong to assume everyone who reads my posts only needs to see relevant
stuff that's gone before?

Am I a rude, stupid, unedsucated SOB or what?

Angelo DePalma

Imagine how annoying it would be if "bottom-posting" was the prevailing
email convention.


"Angelo DePalma" wrote in message
...
Sorry this post is not about Larry Parr's toenails, Sam Sloan's inability
to beat an 1800 player with the Damiano, or Bill Goichberg's single-handed
destruction of the American way of life.

It's about something of far greater importance -- my integrity as a usenet
poster.

I've recently been fileted and flambayed (forgive the intentional
misspelling) on a bridge newsgroup for "top-posting." I've never read
anything about that subject here. In fact I didn't even know what they
were talking about.

I was called "too stupid to be edsucated (sic) and too rude to consider
other people."

What do you guys think of top-posting, which I admit I do all the time. Is
it really rude, merely poor form, or just the favorite obsession of an
anal-retentive bridge player whose favorite vacation activity is helping
his sister remove mildew from the underside of her kitchen table? Am I
wrong to assume everyone who reads my posts only needs to see relevant
stuff that's gone before?

Am I a rude, stupid, unedsucated SOB or what?

Angelo DePalma

"Angelo DePalma" wrote in message
...
Imagine how annoying it would be if "bottom-posting" was the prevailing
email convention.


"Angelo DePalma" wrote in message
...
Sorry this post is not about Larry Parr's toenails, Sam Sloan's inability
to beat an 1800 player with the Damiano, or Bill Goichberg's
single-handed destruction of the American way of life.

It's about something of far greater importance -- my integrity as a
usenet poster.

I've recently been fileted and flambayed (forgive the intentional
misspelling) on a bridge newsgroup for "top-posting." I've never read
anything about that subject here. In fact I didn't even know what they
were talking about.

I was called "too stupid to be edsucated (sic) and too rude to consider
other people."

What do you guys think of top-posting, which I admit I do all the time.
Is it really rude, merely poor form, or just the favorite obsession of an
anal-retentive bridge player whose favorite vacation activity is helping
his sister remove mildew from the underside of her kitchen table? Am I
wrong to assume everyone who reads my posts only needs to see relevant
stuff that's gone before?

Am I a rude, stupid, unedsucated SOB or what?

Angelo DePalma


Yeah.

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 12:09:05 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:


Yeah, he said it. I have pointed out how stoooooooopid this is in my new
book, Chess Openings for Christians.

Wait a second. This seems to be a worthy topic for discussion.

Sam Sloan wrote:
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 12:09:05 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:


Yeah, he said it. I have pointed out how stoooooooopid this is in my new
book, Chess Openings for Christians.

Wait a second. This seems to be a worthy topic for discussion.

Bring it on...

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 12:09:05 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:


Yeah, he said it. I have pointed out how stoooooooopid this is in my new
book, Chess Openings for Christians.

Wait a second. This seems to be a worthy topic for discussion.

i don't want to spill the beans! but the publisher also wants
"Chess-for-Commies" [subtitled: "better read than Schiller"], "End Games for
the Compleat Quaker-was-Buddhist", "On Being Jewish in the Middle-Game"
[with foreplay by Woody Allen], and "Charismatic Approaches to God's Game -
Halleluiah and pass the Ammo", and so on

i am planning to visit the mid-west, setting up a tent out there, and
attracting some christians to interview - 'when did the lord suggest you
start playing chess' etc.

cordially, phil

the heathen paradise of the northern appalachian realm, etc