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

Only complete ****ing assholes top-post, Angie. Get with the program.

"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
...

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.

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 at 23:09 -0400, Angelo DePalma scribbled:
-Sorry this post is not about Larry Parr's toenails, Sam Sloan's
-inability to beat an 1800 player with the Damiano, or Bill Goich-
-berg's single-handed destruction of the American way of life.

Gee, if it isn't about one of those topics, the bozos^H^H^H^H^H
er, uh, ever-so-polite and intelligent posters on this base are
going to have a hard time dealing with it, wouldn't you think?!?
grin

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

I've been writing chess humor for 37 years. I can't top that
line, so I'm gonna leave it alone. I know when I'm beat. But all
seriousness aside (as the late Steve Allen used to say), the phrase
"asbestos suit" existed in the online community (a.k.a. Modemland)
long before access to the Usenet became widespread roughly 10 to 15
years ago. When you post on the Usenet you leave the sane world
behind, as well as any claims to integrity. Flaming's the name of
the game. As Harry Truman said, if you can't stand the heat, get
out of the kitchen!!

-What do you guys think of top-posting,

Fifteen years ago I used to have a rule of thumb as a reader
that the poster should have original text on, and make his first
point by the bottom of, the first screen. If not, I would just hit
'n' to go to the next posting. (That was before mice and besides,
it takes less effort than clicking a mouse.) Of course, that's hor-
ribly old-fashioned by today's standards. Nobody cares about "band-
width" anymore; if a poster "quotes" 200 lines and then writes "I
agree" at the end, nobody even bothers to flame it. Who cares about
netiquette or good posting habits?! That's sooooo 20th Century!
This is Modern Cyberspace! It's not your grandfather's Usenet any-
more! grin

-Am I wrong to assume everyone who reads my posts only needs to see
-relevant stuff that's gone before?

A reasonable person would say that it doesn't matter whether the
poster tops or bottoms, as long as the poster deletes extraneous ver-
biage and "quotes" only those parts of the original post needed to
allow the reply to make sense. (Another old-fashioned netiquette
idea.)

-Am I wrong to assume everyone | Hey, how about this idea?!
-who reads my posts only needs to | SIDE posting!!! (I'll bet
-see relevant stuff that's gone | this gets messed up on most
-before? | people's screens! ha-ha!
--
----------------------------------------------
david moeser -- erasmus39 on yahoo
Censornati, Ohio - USA
----------------------------------------------
* Big Browser Is Watching You! *

(Headers munged to foil spammers; real info in taglines)

Personally,

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

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.

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

How refreshing. I post something that EVERYBODY agrees with. We chess
players are truly a brotherhood of sorts.

I can see it now: The Good Ship RGCP runs around on a desert island. Stan
Booz and Tom Klem help the CEO of the Continental Chess Association find a
coconut for dinner; Larry Parr and Sam Sloan roast grubs for John Fernandez
and Neil Brennen. After dinner, Taylor Kingston and Ray Gordon tell funny
jokes and everyone laughs (not at them). Later that evening I beat Sam 5-0
in the Damiano Challenge match and donate my $100 winnings to the Paul Rubin
Foundation for Latte-Makers Displaced by Hurricane Katrina.

Gens una summus, vere.

One is reminded of the Summer of 2001, right before the attacks on the
twin towers. The 'hot' news on all the 24/7 news outlets was which way
the sharks were swimming in the Gulf of Mexico. One day, "... the sharks
are swimming North", and the next, "... the sharks 'appear' to be
swimming South".

Into the void of the news blackout of Hurricane Goichberg, slips the
noose of inane bloviating (with apologies to Bill O'Reilly).

Tom Klem
"What we have here ... is a failure to ... communicate"
---The Warden (Strother Martin, Actor) in Cool Hand Luke

Angelo DePalma wrote:
How refreshing. I post something that EVERYBODY agrees with. We chess
players are truly a brotherhood of sorts.

I can see it now: The Good Ship RGCP runs around on a desert island. Stan
Booz and Tom Klem help the CEO of the Continental Chess Association find a
coconut for dinner; Larry Parr and Sam Sloan roast grubs for John Fernandez
and Neil Brennen. After dinner, Taylor Kingston and Ray Gordon tell funny
jokes and everyone laughs (not at them). Later that evening I beat Sam 5-0
in the Damiano Challenge match and donate my $100 winnings to the Paul Rubin
Foundation for Latte-Makers Displaced by Hurricane Katrina.

Gens una summus, vere.

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

Angelo DePalma

Angie, if you really want to discuss with others then you should show some
more politeness on your side.

Jerz,

As you know from my hundreds of posts I'm usually polite until someone
insults or annoys me. Then, I admit, I go overboard the other way. I've
apologized several times here after that's happened.

You have to be an American who plays bridge to understand how annoying
bridge players can be. In chess we have ratings which provide reasonbly
accurate measures of our playing strength. No such thing exists in bridge.
About 40% of ACBL members are "life masters." They think they're hot ****
but most of them are horrible players. I know this for a fact because when I
was a much better player, 20 years ago, I felt lucky to break even in Flight
A. Now I place overall in almost every event I play in.

Lacking a number to rein in their egos, and unable to win bridge arguments
with the greenest tyro (another thing about bridge: everyone is right), they
turn to laws and procedures for solace. If they can't win a board (hand)
through bidding and play, perhaps the director will rule in their favor. And
if not, at least they can be satisfied that they've brow-beaten someone in
the course of what is supposed to be a social game.

What on earth am I talking about?

"Jerzy" wrote in message
...
Am I a rude, stupid, unedsucated SOB or what?

Angelo DePalma

Angie, if you really want to discuss with others then you should show some
more politeness on your side.

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

The new Google Groups only shows the new material. You have to click
on "Show quoted text" to see what went before. Therefore, I couldn't
care less whether someone top posts or bottom posts.