Re: X10 still around?

[Marc F Hult <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 23:25:18 GMT, "Dean Roddey" <droddey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
in message  <yHmXe.5108$6e1.4648@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>"Wayne Lundberg" <Waynelund@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:74kXe.56081$qY1.42679@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>I take it that top posting is acceptable in this newsgroup?
>
>To be honest I never really thought about it, and had no idea what you guys
>were always rambling about with the 'top posting' stuff. I've been on
>newsgroups for a long time, but I guess I just wasn't paying attention. I
>always just figured if anyone wanted to know what I responding to, they'd
>look below, and I didn't want them to have to go searching for what I
>posted. But, I guess maybe people see it the other way around.

If there are only two posts in a thread, it doesn't much matter.

>And of course there's the whole thing about how what I have to say is much
>more important than the people I'm responding to, and therefore why would
>you need to even check :-)

But if the respondent wants to place a comment physically adjacent to individual
parts of a post, as I did above, it does matter.

Top posting is one way that some folks have used/use for disregarding what has
been written before -- to end the discussion with their last words, as it were,
especially if the thread started conventionally and then was top-posted.

Others just aren't up on their 1990's usenet etiquette ;-)  Used to be that (eg)
college sophomores would collaborate to post elaborate threads so that the very
geometry of the article titles in the thread when viewed in unix pine or tin
newsreaders made an 'artistic' pattern. Now they seem to concentrate on how many
terabytes of binary files they can acquire ...

Marc
Marc_F_hult
www.ECOntrol.org