Upside down post

Forgive me if this has been talked about before, but why do posters here put
replies under a copy of the original? Is it not tiresome to scroll ever
further down to see where the thread is going? I only mention it as I lurk
on the Dutch Barge forum where they post a reply on top of the previous post
and it's much easier to read.

--
Richard Curtis
MotorTjalk Gideon
Hammersmith, London

I agree with you, it is very tiresome
>
>Forgive me if this has been talked about before, but why do posters here put
>replies under a copy of the original? Is it not tiresome to scroll ever
>further down to see where the thread is going? I only mention it as I lurk
>on the Dutch Barge forum where they post a reply on top of the previous post
>and it's much easier to read.
>
>--
>Richard Curtis
>MotorTjalk Gideon
>Hammersmith, London
>
>

--
Chris Watts
Nailsea

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:42:47 +0000, Guy Morgan
<guy@firstlight.plus.com> wrote:

>BTW blaming OE is not valid as IIUC there is something called quotefix
>which gives control of where the cursor is auto-placed.

Dunno how it works with OE, but it's not perfect with Outlook, which
I've recently had to use at a client's office. Naturally, I installed
Opera and Quotefix ASAP, but still have to do some cutting and pasting
with Outlook.

bjg

"Paul E. Bennett" <peb@amleth.> wrote in message
news:cvqeb1$eae$1$830fa79d@news....
> Guy Morgan wrote:
>
> > BTW blaming OE is not valid as IIUC there is something called quotefix
> > which gives control of where the cursor is auto-placed.
>
> I certainly wish our IT department would allow it to be installed on our
> systems. However, there is the issue of licencing arrangements and one of
> the IT guys having to sit down and check it all out first before they will
> allow it to be installed on many machines.

Not to mention that most IT departments like to have a system which operates
as they want it to, rather than to suit the operators.

Regards

Jonathan

In message <ubVe3TouzOICFw2R@ntlworld.com>, Bob Adams <me@>
writes
>In message <cvpslu$3b4$1@hercules.>, Richard
><dolphin.design@> writes
>>
>>Forgive me if this has been talked about before, but why do posters here put
>>replies under a copy of the original? Is it not tiresome to scroll ever
>>further down to see where the thread is going? I only mention it as I lurk
>>on the Dutch Barge forum where they post a reply on top of the previous post
>>and it's much easier to read.
>>
>>--
>>Richard Curtis
>>MotorTjalk Gideon
>>Hammersmith, London
>>
>>
>
>A. Top posters
>Q. What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
>
RICL!!

Guy
--
Guy Morgan
Tug Thorn and butty Persephone WFB, Stockton Locks, Grand Union

"Ed Harris" <ed.surname@ndirect.co.uk> wrote in message
news:422227bb$0$2768$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> Guy Morgan wrote:
>
> > Sadly we can't legislate for the lazy people in all fora who never seem
> > to snip :-(
> >
> This being the major problem with bottom posting

That isn't a problem with bottom posting per se. It's a problem with
posters.

Regards

Jonathan

Guy Morgan writes

snip

>I don't see the problem of adjusting to the convention in the particular
>environment. I generally top post at work because that's what is
>expected, or interleave if it makes more sense, but bottom post or
>interleave on mailing lists and newsgroups because that is the accepted
>convention in that environment.
I do the same.
>
>Sadly we can't legislate for the lazy people in all fora who never seem to
Forums, please!
--
Andrew Case

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:38:53 GMT, afc <andrew@swanpc.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:

> Guy Morgan writes

>>Sadly we can't legislate for the lazy people in all fora who never seem to
>Forums, please!

Why??


Tim

Dutton Dry-Dock
Traditional & Modern canal craft repairs
Vintage diesel engine service

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:43:16 +0000, Tim Leech <duttondock@onetel.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:38:53 GMT, afc <andrew@swanpc.freeserve.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>> Guy Morgan writes
>
>>>Sadly we can't legislate for the lazy people in all fora who never seem to
>>Forums, please!
>
>Why??

Because, where English adopts a "loan word", it acquires normal
english plurals.

Plus, dog latin plurals are usually wrongly done.

(my personal favour is referenda, which is oh so very very wrong!)

--
Dave Mayall

Tim Leech writes
>On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:38:53 GMT, afc <andrew@swanpc.freeserve.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>> Guy Morgan writes
>
>>>Sadly we can't legislate for the lazy people in all fora who never seem to
>>Forums, please!
>
>Why??
>
How about, because we aren't Romans.
--
Andrew Case