OK, I'm now trying to be good! I have a customer who wants historic jackets and trews for a couple of wedding page boys. I need a very dark navy suiting, but we don't want to use the real fabric (which would be a glorious Abimilech Hainsworth melton) as it would be like putting them in plate armour. And, of course, they'll grow out of them...
So I have hunted through the stash for summat that would do... Here's this 3m by 60" wide bit of poly suiting. It's down as black on my inventory, but up next to the black wool/viscose Venetian cloth, it looks blue.
If I can get the pattern for two boys, aged 7 and 8 (though one is tall for his age) out of it, this will do fine. Keep digits suitably tangled! If I can do it, this bit can move on at £6.50 per metre. Meanwhile, I'm still looking for an alternative to the real thing, just in case...
That's how I always post. If you are griping about someone top posting why don't you just do that?
I always top post. Pretty consistently. Might be easier to just block messages from folks that post in a way that bugs you. Kate's message is the first in the thread that I can read from here. No top posting gripe but the responses.
BTW, good for you Kate. Just to get back to what I see as OP. Taria
As I'm sure you're aware, there's a very coarse and oft-quoted expression (which I would choose not to mention here) amongst long time users of usenet, used in a very derogatory sense to define those 'who refuse to take clue'.
Sadly there do seem to be quite a few who refuse to take clue....
Doesn't make it right or considerate to other people, though. I have no wish to get into a slanging match, but......
Usenet isn't a real time conversation, threads can develop over many days, with many branches. Add in thread drift, and the fact that a poster may not visit the NG for a few days and you *might* just realise that usenet conventions developed for extremely good reasons.
On all the sewing group no-one really worries about top or bottom posting. We don't care much either way, so each poster does what feels most comfortable for them. Occasionally we ask for clarification is all. Don't sweat the small stuff. Life's too short.
You may know the poster you criticise ("Sandra Bodycoat") well, in which case there is a possibility that your reply to her was understood. I don't recall any previous posts from her, so there is a danger that your post will be misinterpreted. It certainly comes across to me as, well, intolerant.
The poster has not come back into the thread, and has no previous history in the group, so you may have driven her away. Was that your intention, however much you may find top-posting irritating?
I can't see the point of wars over top or bottom posting. To my mind they are a distraction from the real target, which is inadequate snipping, quoting the whole of a post just to add a few lines. A few such exchanges and a post becomes unreadable.
I prefer interleaved quoting, but proper snipping is vital in any response to reduce the dead weight in the reply, and is something Sandra was guilty of. Top-posting does reduce the irritation of excessive re-quoting, but that isn't a good reason to do it.
A pointer to an article, such as the ones below, is probably the best way to respond, if you want to change the "offenders" mind about how they quote.
formatting link
snipped-for-privacy@mail.maclaunch.com/msg00068.html(I don't usually quote Wikipedia as a primary source, but the article is pretty comprehensive.) I think the main reason for top-vs-bottom posting wars is that each side finds the other's approach to be seriously irritating. However, short-tempered or cryptic responses are most likely to drive each side back into entrenched positions, from which they lob rocks at each other, to nobody's benefit.
I don't think so, judging on her initial response,
Nor do I, but it wasn't me who made the initial comment about her post.
But this is usenet, no good being thin-skinned if you're going to post to NGs.
Definitely nt *my* intention, merely pointing out that cewrtain conventions have developed within usenet over a great many years for very valid reasons.
Well, yes. I can only agree with you. That reinforces my comments about usenet conventions.
No, continued top posting is laziness in the extreme[1]; it says much about the attitude of the poster. Abiding by accepted usenet protocol is about consideration for others.
Those may be valid references for newbies, but the TPer in this thread appears not to be a newbie. I quote:
That signifies to me someone who is reasonably conversant with usenet, if not usenet protocol.
I suggest that the particular individual would have little or no inclination to actually look at any of those URLs, given her apparent stance from her post quoted above.
My original comments were intended as a rather light-hearted reflection on BEI's post, nothing more. BEI's response seemed to me fully in keeping with the tenor of my comments.
It wasn't me who wished to push the matter further, although I have no wish to engage in a battle of wits and intellect with anyone who is patently so ill-equipped to make it worthwhile[2] [3].
[1] I fully accept that newbies who don't know any better may start by TPing. It's to be hoped that they take on board the suggestions copntained in the numerous URLs that can be found about usenet protocol.
[2] As I am responding to Alan, that comment was not aimed at him.
[3] But you may wish to look at what your other half has already commented in this thread. And to be honest, which I fully agree with, certainly in this NG. Except that a good lunch and a glass or three of wine has prompted me to respond to your post.....
InspirePoint website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.