D. Spencer Hines wrote:

NOTE: The following UNLRELATED newsgroup was removed from my reply
because Outlook has nothing to do with newsgroups which is the only
place of concern regarding top- versus bottom-posting:
- Removed: microsoft.public.outlook.general

Microsoft has employed the Top Posting Protocol for Outlook Express and
Windows Live Mail -- and presumably for Outlook as well. I don't use
Outlook, yet.

Top- and bottom-posting are not protocols. They are *styles*. It's up
to you what style you want to use. Some newsreaders (where only top-
versus bottom-posting is a heated issue) let you select which style you
want to use. OE does, too, but not through a UI config screen. Since
Windows XP service pack 2, there has been a registry edit that lets you
change from the default top-posting style of OE to switch to bottom-
posting style (and another registry edit to decide where to put the
signatu before or after the quoted content in a reply).

[Although WLM offers a choice of Top or Bottom Posting...]

Yep, Window Live Mail moved the registry settings to UI config screens
to make it easier and safer to make those choices.

I think it's definitely the Right Way To Go.

There are lots of arguing about whether top- or bottom-posting should be
used. I'm not going through to rehash all those arguments again.
However, what you SHOULD do is *retain* the same style in your replies
(and in your editing of the quoted content to maintain that same order).
If you are the first to reply (in a subthread) then you get to choose to
use top- or bottom-posting. Everyone thereafter that replies in that
same subthread should be polite in using the same style. There is no
RFC standard to specify a header where the original poster can request a
particular posting style be used in replies, so it is really up to the
first respondent in a subthread to establish the style in that
subthread. If you are stubborn and want to force your own style then
make sure you edit the quoted content so all of the other posts you are
quoting are also in the same order as is your reply style. Don't simply
be quoting the other posts in some jumbled mess of mixed top- and
bottom-posting order. As you are expected to snip the quoted content to
provide enough context for your reply, you are also expected to sort the
quoted content into the same style that you use in your reply. If you
want to argue for a particular order then DO IT yourself within your own
reply posts!

Put the New Material at the TOP.

But then why bother top-posting? Since the idea is that you expect no
one to read the quoted content below your reply to provide context for
your reply then there is no point in quoting at all. Just reply without
any quoting (which makes top- versus bottom-posting completely
irrelevant).

Saves time and effort for witting, alert, intelligent readers.

Oh, your argument (used by many for top-posting) is that you are a lazy
poster and simply use whatever style for your replies that your
newsreader defaults to (although, as shown, you DO have the option even
in OE to change style). So if you are too lazy to use your own style
then we can also assume that you are too lazy to edit the quoted content
to reorder them in the same order as your chosen style, and that you are
too lazy to snip the fluff from the quoted content to provide only the
sufficient level of context for your own reply. And we should care
about the wants of lazy posters' why?

But will Microsoft have the courage to continue to endorse Top Posting in
the face of so many outcries from Yahoo Bottom Posters?

Um, OE has defaulted to top-posting since it existed as Internet Mail &
News and after Microsoft acquired it and eventually renamed to Outlook
Express. So Microsoft *does* endorsed top-posting style in OE.
Microsoft doesn't generate Usenet standards (whether by RFC or as de
facto standards) and their service pack 2 to provide registry edits for
OE and providing those config settings in the UI dialogs for WLM was
Microsoft acknowledging that perhaps they didn't make the correct
choice.

Let's Hope So...

Let's hope you decide not to be a lazy poster. Even if you elect to
top-post (which is relevant only to replies), let's hope that you
maintain the same posting order as established by a prior respondent
(unless you happen to the be the first one in a subthread), and let's
hope that you reorder the quoted content to match your posting style,
and let's hope you learn how to snip the quoted content to provide only
sufficient context for your own replies.

No...

You miss the point.

The old material is down there for perusal by those who have not been
following the thread or who have poor memories -- OR who want to refresh
their memories -- OR who want to focus on a particular statement.

NO need to put all that baggage up front.

There is simply NO reason to force the alert, witting, intelligent reader to
slog through it all again.

Microsoft had it right initially...

But CHOICE of Top or Bottom Posting for the dullards and taking it to the UI
rather than through Registry Changes was a reasonable action.

Salud,
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor

"VanguardLH" wrote in message
...

Put the New Material at the TOP. [DSH]

But then why bother top-posting? Since the idea is that you expect no
one to read the quoted content below your reply to provide context for
your reply then there is no point in quoting at all. Just reply without
any quoting (which makes top- versus bottom-posting completely
irrelevant).

Saves time and effort for witting, alert, intelligent readers, who can
remember what they read. Dullards often cannot.

"D. Spencer Hines" wrote in message
...

There is simply NO reason to force the alert, witting, intelligent reader
to slog through it all again.

That's twice you've used the word "witting". What does that mean?

--
Tom Koch
Awareness is free.
http://tomsterdam.com
http://insideoe.com

"Tom Koch" wrote in message
...
"D. Spencer Hines" wrote in message
...

There is simply NO reason to force the alert, witting, intelligent reader to
slog through it all again.

That's twice you've used the word "witting". What does that mean?

Presumably part of a compliment - witting, unwitting?

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

No...

You miss the point.

You missed the point.

The old material is down there for perusal by those who have not been
following the thread or who have poor memories -- OR who want to refresh
their memories -- OR who want to focus on a particular statement.

Then don't bother quoting the other posts. If you are going to force
the user to go hunting for the context of your reply, you might as well
as force them to go read the post to which you replied.

NO need to put all that baggage up front.

And there's no point in putting all that baggage at the end, either, if
you aren't going to provide context for your reply.

There is simply NO reason to force the alert, witting, intelligent reader to
slog through it all again.

Not everyone visits just one or two newsgroups as do you. Not everyone
merely reads those posts of interests. Not everyone only responds to
only one or two posts per day. Providing context means letting someone
regain the context of something that they aren't going to waste brain
cells to remember.

Microsoft had it right initially...

Since Microsoft did not invent Usenet and since Microsoft doesn't define
the RFCs for Usenet and since Microsoft was so very late an entrant to
Usenet that de facto standards already existed that Microsoft *chose* to
ignore does not make Microsoft right. It just made the spell checking
and prepend code easier to implement.

But CHOICE of Top or Bottom Posting for the dullards and taking it to the UI
rather than through Registry Changes was a reasonable action.

To that I will agree but then YOU must also realize that Microsoft would
have added the registry edits or UI config settings to select which
posting style to use unless Microsoft finally realized that they were
not correct and that they had failed in trying to rewrite the de facto
standards in long practice before Microsoft showed up in Usenet. They
got it wrong and then offered a choice of doing it the old way or doing
it their way.

Of course, you took the safest route to argue your point. You posted in
microsoft.public.* newsgroups where a large number of users of OE are
posting and are lazy by using the default posting style of OE,
uneducated regarding the registry hack, and too lazy to review the
config settings in WLM. Go post in a non-microsoft newsgroup to see how
well you far against the much larger non-Microsoft Usenet community in
your shortsighted arguments. Microsoft is not Usenet. In Usenet,
Microsoft has a small presence. If you want to proselytize your faith
and convictions, you don't preach to the choir. Go seek converts
outside the church. Be prepared for many tribulations on your quest.

Sorry for the threadjack.

I am or rather was a long term Outhouse Distress user. I never knew
there were such registry hacks to select top/bottom post and/or signing.
I used OEQuotefix towards the end of that time, which gave me the
capability of bottom posting amongst other things, in particular plain
text formatting, where *text* would produce a bolding of the word text,
and /text/ , italic text. Think there were a couple of others too. Was
this also implemented but not broadcast in OE and WLM?

--
Wisdom and experience come with age, they say, but I wish I could
remember the darn question

"D. Spencer Hines" wrote in message
...
No...

You miss the point.

The old material is down there for perusal by those who have not been
following the thread or who have poor memories -- OR who want to
refresh their memories -- OR who want to focus on a particular
statement.

NO need to put all that baggage up front.

There is simply NO reason to force the alert, witting, intelligent
reader to

What's a witting?

--
Wisdom and experience come with age, they say, but I wish I could
remember the darn question

One thing we have learned from this fellow in
microsoft.public.windows.live.mail.desktop is "Don't feed the troll." This
posting is a public service.

Cheers,

Earle

"D. Spencer Hines" escribió en el mensaje de
noticias ...
Microsoft has employed the Top Posting Protocol for Outlook Express and
Windows Live Mail -- and presumably for Outlook as well. I don't use
Outlook, yet.

[Although WLM offers a choice of Top or Bottom Posting...]

I think it's definitely the Right Way To Go.

Put the New Material at the TOP.

Saves time and effort for witting, alert, intelligent readers.

But will Microsoft have the courage to continue to endorse Top Posting in
the face of so many outcries from Yahoo Bottom Posters?

Let's Hope So...
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor

Long time Troll and I did say so when he started posting again in the beginning of
last year

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"Earle Horton" wrote in message
...
One thing we have learned from this fellow in
microsoft.public.windows.live.mail.desktop is "Don't feed the troll." This
posting is a public service.

Cheers,

Earle

"D. Spencer Hines" escribió en el mensaje de noticias
...
Microsoft has employed the Top Posting Protocol for Outlook Express and
Windows Live Mail -- and presumably for Outlook as well. I don't use
Outlook, yet.

[Although WLM offers a choice of Top or Bottom Posting...]

I think it's definitely the Right Way To Go.

Put the New Material at the TOP.

Saves time and effort for witting, alert, intelligent readers.

But will Microsoft have the courage to continue to endorse Top Posting in
the face of so many outcries from Yahoo Bottom Posters?

Let's Hope So...
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor