 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Platforms PCXboxPlayStationNintendoGames ActionStrategyRole Playing GamesSimulatorsSport Games |
Game Forum / Role Playing Games / EverQuest / December 2003Upcoming Updates January and beyond
http://eqlive.station.sony.com/updates/upcoming_updates.jsp January and Beyond Upcoming for January and February 2004 We want to wish everyone a happy holiday season and thank you for continuing to be a part of EverQuest. We have some exciting times ahead with our 7th expansion in the works, www.gatesofdiscord.com, and there are many more exciting things to come. Here are a few of the new features on the EQ team's large and busy schedule. Melee Enhancement, part 2 Melee classes are currently enjoying the first part of the improved Melee system and the feedback we are receiving has been great. Early in 2004 we plan to move forward with the rest of the melee enhancement, the reaction abilities. The enhancement gives Monks, Rogues and Warriors the ability to use special skills in response to a mistake made by their opponent or an exceptional move of their own. This enhancement will be in addition to the existing system, allowing players to use the skills for more involved game-play and to improve the abilities of their characters. A more detailed explanation and the transcript of a chat with the EQ Live team about the system can be found on the Developers Corner. Graveyard Zone Tired of losing your corpse? The current EQ system removes corpses from the game after a week to reduce clutter and potential video lag. But we know there are times when your character dies and you just can't get it right away. Next thing you know a day turns into a week and BAM! Your corpse is gone. Since we can't leave the corpses sitting in game indefinitely, some inventive folks here have come up with another option. We plan to create a "graveyard" zone that will only work if your corpse has decayed and disappeared. If you have lost your corpse due to decay in other parts of Norrath, you will be allowed to enter this zone and reclaim it. Tradeskill Interface Upgrade Tired of all the clicking and dragging needed just to make a type 1 wood arrow? We know that the current tradeskill interface is cumbersome, so the UI guys have come up with some new ideas. Opening a tradeskill container will now open a new user interface. In the window you will find an area that has all recipes that are currently available to you. This includes recipes that are at your skill level as well as some above it. Clicking on a recipe will display what items are necessary for its completion. Clicking the "combine" button will extract those required items from the player's inventory, and perform the recipe combine, placing the results on the player's cursor. The new system is nice and neat, with no dragging and dropping unless you want to try a combine that is way out of your league, which uses the old style of combination. These are just a few of the things slated to come out of the EQ Live laboratory. Watch for other exciting announcements in the weeks ahead. >We plan to create a "graveyard" zone that will only work if your >corpse has decayed and disappeared. If you have lost your corpse due >to decay in other parts of Norrath, you will be allowed to enter this >zone and reclaim it. Wonder how long it will stay there, after all if you quit EQ for a year, do you really forsee this having your body? >Opening a tradeskill container will now open a new user interface. In >the window you will find an area that has all recipes that are [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >and dropping unless you want to try a combine that is way out of your >league, which uses the old style of combination. Wow finally someone listened, Ive been suggesting that since I started skilling, its the most laborious dull thing to do.. Hurrah! >>Opening a tradeskill container will now open a new user interface. In >>the window you will find an area that has all recipes that are [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Hurrah! So, taking bets on how long it'll be before the bitching of the "dumbing down" of tradeskills starts up. Who wants to start the betting? ><  SignatureDark Tyger, keeper of the Nerf Railgun(tm) All hail the Thief.... >>>Opening a tradeskill container will now open a new user interface. In >>>the window you will find an area that has all recipes that are [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >"dumbing down" of tradeskills starts up. Who wants to start the >betting? >< I hate this new ability! All this does is dumb down tr....sorry. Seriously? 5min after it goes Live. > >>>Opening a tradeskill container will now open a new user interface. In > >>>the window you will find an area that has all recipes that are [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Seriously? 5min after it goes Live. You know what I'm wondering? EQ Devs say that less than two-thirds of all recipies have been found. If all trivial recipies suddenly appear in my book... how many new, possibly cool things will be found? Frosty, 221 JC 189 Blacksmith 140 Pottery 140 Fletching <SNIP> > > I hate this new ability! All this does is dumb down tr....sorry. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > recipies have been found. If all trivial recipies suddenly appear in my > book... how many new, possibly cool things will be found? Brodder's Revenge, hopefully. SignatureSimond "I ask for so little. Just fear me, love me, do as I say and I will be your slave." - Jarerth the Goblin King, Labyrinth > You know what I'm wondering? EQ Devs say that less than two-thirds of all > recipies have been found. If all trivial recipies suddenly appear in my > book... how many new, possibly cool things will be found? My guess would be that recipies will be flaggable as to whether or not they show up in the list. If they are not flagged, you'll have to do them the old way. I'd expect them to flag all the well-known recipies, not flag the undiscovered ones, and when a new expansion introduces new recipie books, leave them unflagged for a few weeks, then flag them. Signature--Tim Smith >> You know what I'm wondering? EQ Devs say that less than two-thirds >> of all recipies have been found. If all trivial recipies suddenly [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > introduces new recipie books, leave them unflagged for a few weeks, > then flag them. Lol - just have the tradeskill guy browse EQTraders each morning. As a recipe is discovered, add it to the list of recipes that show up in the list. SignatureArch Convoker Mairelon Snapbang of Lanys T'vyl http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=701866 > >>>Opening a tradeskill container will now open a new user interface. In > >>>the window you will find an area that has all recipes that are [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Seriously? 5min after it goes Live. I don't agree. TR skilling is boring and cumbersome. I welcome the new changes. I think how the system now is dumb, it certainly doesn't take any intelligence to be forced to look up the recipie for 4,760 different things and then laboriously be required to click hundreds of times just to make one thing. As things stand now, I'd just as soon as hire a braindead rhesus monkey to do my tradeskilling. -Leaden Signature############################ So you see, imagination needs moodling - long, inefficient, happy idling, dawdling and puttering. Brenda Ueland <snip> > I don't agree. TR skilling is boring and cumbersome. I welcome the new > changes. I think how the system now is dumb, it certainly doesn't take any [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > dawdling and puttering. > Brenda Ueland I agree, having just spent all day making unfired (unstackable) ceramic linings, processing them into fired ones, then processing that into casserole dishes... and only got 1 skill increase (184-185) despite 255 wisdom. Aaaaaargh. No wonder macro programs are so popular. I am sooo looking forward to this possible improvement. Now if only they made a vendor selling frost turnips so brewing skillups could be pain free too!! >>>player's cursor. The new system is nice and neat, with no dragging >>>and dropping unless you want to try a combine that is way out of your [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >So, taking bets on how long it'll be before the bitching of the >"dumbing down" of tradeskills starts up. Ooh, me! Me! Pick me! (For the bitching, I mean, not the betting.) In general this is a great feature and long overdue. But I do have one concern about it "dumbing down" a certain aspect of tradeskills too much. Currently, part of the challenge of tradeskilling is discovering the more obscure "recipes" (especially those required for quests) by a combination of trial-and-error and brilliant insights. I wonder how many "mystery" recipes will suddenly become simply a matter of "pick it from the screen menu", instead of the "follow the clues" mystery game they were intended to be. In alt.games.everquest, Dan Day <dday@houston.rr.com> wrote: >I wonder how many "mystery" recipes will suddenly become simply a matter >of "pick it from the screen menu", instead of the "follow the clues" >mystery game they were intended to be. Indeed, I have no problem with the reduction of clicks, no problem with in-game recipe lists, no problem with clicking the recipe and getting the item back. But will it remove the excitement I felt finding books on a vendor with the new patch and reading them, in-game, to see what recipes they might contain, and then tracking down the stuff, playing with slight variations because they're never exact, and getting something new at the end of it. If, when a new expansion is released, everyone's recipe book contains everything, and the only rush is to find where the stuff is dropped, a little bit of the fun will have gone for me. Not because it's easier, but because the discovery has gone. SignatureTony Evans (ICQ : 170850) Recommended Author : Guy Gavriel Kay Life is like a watermelon, full, sometimes seedy, & juicy. Homepage : http://www.darkstorm.org/tony >In alt.games.everquest, Dan Day <dday@houston.rr.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Not because it's easier, but because the discovery has gone. So the simple solution would to only allow things on the recipe list that you've done *at least once* the old fashioned way. This would still allow for discovery, without losing the speed aspect. Course, I doubt it will happen this way. --sugarman-- > So the simple solution would to only allow things on the recipe list >that you've done *at least once* the old fashioned way. I think that would be the perfect solution. It would even make RP sense, since it would emulate doing things very carefully at first in order to learn the crafting procedure, followed by a more "automatic" crafting of something you already know how to make. > So the simple solution would to only allow things on the recipe list > that you've done *at least once* the old fashioned way. Better, succeed at least once. > This would still allow for discovery, without losing the speed aspect. > > Course, I doubt it will happen this way. Your idea is simple, elegant, keeps the mystery alive but removes the tedium. SOE will never go for it Splendid I have to thhink you have a lot more hours in a day than I do, LOL. Weganna 44 Ranger 7th Hammer > In alt.games.everquest, Dan Day <dday@houston.rr.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Not because it's easier, but because the discovery has gone. > In alt.games.everquest, Dan Day <dday@houston.rr.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > everything, and the only rush is to find where the stuff is dropped, a > little bit of the fun will have gone for me. Well, I read it differently at first, but it seems pretty ambiguous from the original message. I was initially under the impression that the list of recipes that it would give you was recipes that you could make from the items already in your inventory. So, for example, you have all the pieces necessary to make arrows but no bow staves and wanted to fletch, it would give you all the arrow combines you could make from the arrow components, but wouldn't show you any bow combines whatsoever. This is the line: "In the window you will find an area that has all recipes that are currently available to you." Does "currently available" mean simply within the skill range they refer to later, or the recipes you have all the items for in your inventory? I mean, if you don't have arrowheads, one wouldn't consider making arrows to be a recipe available to you. C | > In alt.games.everquest, Dan Day <dday@houston.rr.com> wrote: | > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] | | C I took it to mean that you would see all recipes available to you according to your skill level, if you had the items in your inventory then you would be able to create them with the click of a button, but to try to make an item that requires a skill greater than your current level you would have to do it the old fashioned way. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Day" <dday@houston.rr.com> Newsgroups: alt.games.everquest Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 4:46 PM Subject: Re: Upcoming Updates January and beyond //snip > I wonder how many "mystery" recipes will suddenly become simply a matter > of "pick it from the screen menu", instead of the "follow the clues" > mystery game they were intended to be. What mystery? I haven't yet found a recipie in game that wasn't already listed on EQtraders or in their forums somewhere, more often that not I am killing in a zone where I haven't been in a while and I start looting all this crap asking in group or guild what would anyone want that particular item for. Of course it helps to have a 2nd computer up and running connected to Alla 24x7, but this is not always the case. They should start weeding through the crappy items and crappy quests that no hardly does or implement something as they have described where it makes it easier for people to figure it out for themselves. -Leaden ############################ So you see, imagination needs moodling - long, inefficient, happy idling, dawdling and puttering. Brenda Ueland > In general this is a great feature and long overdue. But I do have > one concern about it "dumbing down" a certain aspect of tradeskills [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of "pick it from the screen menu", instead of the "follow the clues" > mystery game they were intended to be. The list of recipes is long enough that I don't see people finding stuff that way, at least not for old quests. And given how vague or misleading some of those clues were, good riddance to the old quests. For new quests, either make the required tradeskill item a post-250 trivial (and thus unlisted), or do what the Grand Oracle quest did and have the quest giver hand our crucial components as you progress with the quest. So you can try and pre-gather stuff, but you can't do the combine until you reach the correct step (by which point you should know the recipe anyways). I'm looking forward to it, although I can see the problems now. One, skill-mod items. I have a smithing skill of 220, but I'm wearing +15% gloves for an effective smithing of 253. Do I see the same recipes as someone with 220 skill, 250 skill unmodified, or do I see more than a 250 unmodified would see? Two, searchability. If all we get is an alphabetical listing by primary product, it's going to be cumbersome to use. But it still sounds like an improvement over the current system, and I have to admit I'm looking forward to finally finding out what the scaler is used for! James > I'm looking forward to it, although I can see the problems now. One, > skill-mod items. I have a smithing skill of 220, but I'm wearing +15% gloves > for an effective smithing of 253. 252, actually, the cap for modded tradeskills. So no one needs better than 240 in a tradeskill since you only need a +5% geerlok to reach the cap, or 220 skill if you have one of the +15% items. Signaturenino Jeril, 65 Bard, Venril Sathir > > I'm looking forward to it, although I can see the problems now. One, > > skill-mod items. I have a smithing skill of 220, but I'm wearing +15% gloves [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > in a tradeskill since you only need a +5% geerlok to reach the cap, or 220 > skill if you have one of the +15% items. 253 is the raw skill number. Since nobody has shown parses on EQTraders indicating a difference between 250 effective and 252 effective skill, I cannot say with certainty that this acts as 250, 252, 253, or some other number in that range, so I call it 253. There are skills where being above the normal maximum cap has some effect, like Archery and Backstab, and skills where it does nothing, like warrior Taunt, so until there's parsing done one cannot conclude that 252 is the modified cap. James >> > I'm looking forward to it, although I can see the problems now. >> > One, skill-mod items. I have a smithing skill of 220, but I'm [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > until there's parsing done one cannot conclude that 252 is the > modified cap. Although I have been unable to find it, I am told that SoE confirmed the 252 number. Mind you, that actually assumes that SoE really know, which, at times, seems like a bit of a stretch. It also assumes that they even ever said such a thing. I am told it was at one of the recent fan faires. SignatureOn Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr> Elder Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Prophet of 65 seasons Tainniel Fleabane, Halfling Warrior of 31 seasons Giluven, Wood Elf Druid of 26 seasons Graeniel, High Elf Enchanter of 25 seasons >So, taking bets on how long it'll be before the bitching of the >"dumbing down" of tradeskills starts up. Who wants to start the >betting? >< LOL.. not bet here.. its a sure LOSS ;) ----------------------------------------------------- Doctari MysticClaws 56 Beastlord Tunare mtoddATsatxDOTrrDOTcom ----------------------------------------------------- "If your rub a Vah Shir the wrong way, you get nothing but static!" > >We plan to create a "graveyard" zone that will only work if your > >corpse has decayed and disappeared. If you have lost your corpse due [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Wonder how long it will stay there, after all if you quit EQ for a > year, do you really forsee this having your body? Sure. All they have to do is make it an instanced zone. The data for the corpse is not kept in a zone, it is tagged on your account. > >We plan to create a "graveyard" zone that will only work if your > >corpse has decayed and disappeared. If you have lost your corpse due [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Wonder how long it will stay there, after all if you quit EQ for a > year, do you really forsee this having your body? The information on corpses is tied to your character file. So, in theory, it will last as long as your character file lasts. The graveyard zone will be an instanced zone - you click on whatever zones you in there, and only you go in. Others won't be able to access any bodies but their own. Nor do they need to - if your corpse rotted, the res timer has expired. James >Tradeskill Interface Upgrade > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >laboratory. Watch for other exciting announcements in the weeks >ahead. Wow this sounds awesome? The main reason I haven't worked on my Alchemy more is because of the tedius clicking each individual item to drop into my combine container. >> The new system is nice and neat, with no dragging >>and dropping unless you want to try a combine that is way out of your [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >is because of the tedius clicking each individual item to drop into my combine >container. Hmmm... as I read it... It seems combines that are trivial will be able to be done in the new trade skill interface... but items that are still skill ups will need to be done the old way. > >> The new system is nice and neat, with no dragging > >>and dropping unless you want to try a combine that is way out of your [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > able to be done in the new trade skill interface... but items that are > still skill ups will need to be done the old way. <you cut out> >This includes recipes that are at your >skill level as well as some above it. so good for skillups >>Hmmm... as I read it... It seems combines that are trivial will be >>> able to be done in the new trade skill interface... but items that are >>> still skill ups will need to be done the old way. ><you cut out> >>>This includes recipes that are at your >>>skill level as well as some above it. >so good for skillups Most skill ups I work on start at about 50 skill points higher than my current skill; in other words, whatever the next relatively cheap combine is I can find that isnt' too close to my current skill. In fact, at the low end of some skills, I might be working on something more than a hundred points over my level; pottery and baking come to mind, where its simply not worth while bothering trying the low end stuff, just do fish rolls till you can't get skill ups any more, and literally destroy most of the product. If the UI people think the same way I do, all is well and good, but if what they mean by "some above it" is "things within 5 points of trivial" this is practically useless for skill up work, at least till you get to the point where each skill up is -very- expensive and you expect to get a lot of milage out of selling successes back to the vendor or something. Splendid > If the UI people think the same way I do, all is well and good, but if > what they mean by "some above it" is "things within 5 points of > trivial" this is practically useless for skill up work, at least till > you get to the point where each skill up is -very- expensive and you > expect to get a lot of milage out of selling successes back to the > vendor or something. Selling back to vendors has been nerfed for most, if not all recipes now. It is pointless to take the few steps over to a vendor to sell items back rather than just drop them on the ground. I am very much hoping that they do not do what I expect, which is something along the lines of 5 or 10 points above trivial. SignatureOn Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr> Elder Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Prophet of 65 seasons Tainniel Fleabane, Halfling Warrior of 31 seasons Giluven, Wood Elf Druid of 26 seasons Graeniel, High Elf Enchanter of 25 seasons >>If the UI people think the same way I do, all is well and good, but if >>what they mean by "some above it" is "things within 5 points of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I am very much hoping that they do not do what I expect, which is something > along the lines of 5 or 10 points above trivial. Recently (Post patch) I was working on tinkering, doing combines which cost me 45pp or so, I could sell the successes back for 38pp and change. Profitable? Not at all, not even discounting fails. Not worth selling successes? Nope, each success only cost me 7pp, versus fails which cost me 45pp. Because of this, it was also worth sticking a little closer to my trivial level; instead of something 100points higher than my skill level, which I'd fail almost always, it was better to use something only 20 points away, so I'd succede a lot and get more of the money I spent on components back. Of course it also helps that tinkering is done in tinkering kits, not on a ground unit, so that there were no "few steps" involved. Way back when I was doing smithing (a long time before the recent nerf, or even the one that lowered trivials levels) I took two smiths up into the 150 or so range. One destroyed or gave away all the banded, the other (poorer), sold banded to the vendor, or to players at roughly what the vendor would pay. Hundreds of pp difference over the banded range... the former character was higher level and it wasn't worth the hundreds of pp to bother worrying about it. But to the latter one, it very much was worth the extra time and effort hauling the stuff over to the vendor, with SOW and Yaulp and reckless strength to help me move while that badly overloaded. Splendid >>>If the UI people think the same way I do, all is well and good, but >>>if what they mean by "some above it" is "things within 5 points of [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Not worth selling successes? Nope, each success only cost me 7pp, > versus fails which cost me 45pp. I wish pottery still worked that way. They nerfed the prices of pottery combines to oblivion. I assumed they had done the same to all tradeskills. > Because of this, it was also worth sticking a little closer to my > trivial level; instead of something 100points higher than my skill [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > hauling the stuff over to the vendor, with SOW and Yaulp and reckless > strength to help me move while that badly overloaded. Again, if they did the same thing to smithing sellback prices they did to pottery ones, then, the vendor sellback price will be well under 1gp per item, rather than just a small loss per item. SignatureOn Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr> Elder Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Prophet of 65 seasons Tainniel Fleabane, Halfling Warrior of 31 seasons Giluven, Wood Elf Druid of 26 seasons Graeniel, High Elf Enchanter of 25 seasons > If the UI people think the same way I do, all is well and good, but if > what they mean by "some above it" is "things within 5 points of trivial" > this is practically useless for skill up work, at least till you get to > the point where each skill up is -very- expensive and you expect to get a > lot of milage out of selling successes back to the vendor or something. They are combining two things in this change that don't have to be combined: 1. Making it so that doing a specific recipie doesn't require as much tedious clicking and mousing, and 2. Making it convenient to find out what you need for a recipie. It might make more sense to not combine these. For #1, the simplest solution I can think of offhand would be to add a "autofill" checkbox to tradeskill containers. If you check this box, when you do a combine, the following would happen: 1. The product, if you succeeded, would automatically go into inventory. 2. The tradeskill container automatically refills from your inventory with whatever ingrediants were consumed. If they still want #2, they could make it so you can click on a known recipie to automatically load the tradeskill container. It might be interesting to add a tradeskill book, kind of like a spell book. The tradeskill book could contain a list of all the standard recipies, and places to scribe new recipies. This would allow for three kinds of recipies: 1. The standard known recipies. Everyone can do these. 2. Undiscovered recipies that everyone can do, once they know the ingredients. Make it so trying on of these adds it to your tradeskill book. 3. A new type of recipie, that only works if you have it in your book. These could be obtained by quests, or mobs could drop recipie scrolls that you scribe, much like mob-dropped spells. Signature--Tim Smith >>> The new system is nice and neat, with no dragging >>>and dropping unless you want to try a combine that is way out of your [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > able to be done in the new trade skill interface... but items that are > still skill ups will need to be done the old way. I wouldn't call anything that isn't trivial "way out of your league" ... but then *I* am not an SOE employee :) >>> The new system is nice and neat, with no dragging >>>and dropping unless you want to try a combine that is way out of your [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >able to be done in the new trade skill interface... but items that are >still skill ups will need to be done the old way. If you read the whole thing, it said that recipes slightly above would be included as well. Only items that are "way out of your league" will require the old method. So, sorry, interface, by the sound of it, won't work for making cultural armor at smithing 50. >< SignatureDark Tyger, keeper of the Nerf Railgun(tm) All hail the Thief.... lol, but making tempers is way under my skill level, and many times making coldain vel tempers is the longest and most boring part of smithing...or making cod oil, or making amy other subcombine for smithing, brewing, poterymaking, baking... you cant tell me all those people in bazaar with 500 misty picnics havent made them until they are so trivial that they feel like one more set of combines their brains will leak out of their ears... aru > If you read the whole thing, it said that recipes slightly above would > be included as well. Only items that are "way out of your league" will > require the old method. So, sorry, interface, by the sound of it, > won't work for making cultural armor at smithing 50. >< I think it said trivial or near trivial as opposed to "way our of your league". So maybe you would see some of the recipes that you are close to the trivial level for. > >> The new system is nice and neat, with no dragging > >>and dropping unless you want to try a combine that is way out of your [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > able to be done in the new trade skill interface... but items that are > still skill ups will need to be done the old way. > I think it said trivial or near trivial as opposed to "way our of your > league". > So maybe you would see some of the recipes that you are close to the trivial > level for. A) Please don't top post in the AGE newsgroup B) Since people exist with maxed out skill in every trade skill, there will be people who get to see every recipie in the game, discovered or not. Some of those people will post them to the net, so they will be available for everyone. Do you -have- to look on the net? No. Personally, I don't mind this too much, since they've apparantly made many recipies far too hard to figure out; the designers have stated that half the recipies already in the game have yet to be discovered, despite some being there since launch. This could double the number of things trade skills can do, and perhaps there are some nice little gems hidden away in there; trade skills are largely worthless, so any additional candy would be very welcome. But I'm trying to demonstrate how your point about the "trivial or near trivial" shouldn't keep anyone from being able to find out any given formula, unless perhaps some of the top end stuff that doesn't ever become trivial is too high even for the "way out of your league" loophole. Splendid > > I think it said trivial or near trivial as opposed to "way our of your > > league". > > So maybe you would see some of the recipes that you are close to the trivial > > level for. > > > A) Please don't top post in the AGE newsgroup Oh give it a rest .... you and some others seem to insist on this ridiculous convention in this particular newsgroup (I have not met another newsgroup that is as rabid about this practice)... since you are not moderators just killfile the top posters rather than seeming like the little boys you appear to be. When I posted almost a year ago a number of references on this matter about top posting and the fact that it did adhere to "Netiquette" some of you were reduced to vitriol and abuse. Just let the top posters alone or ignore them if it offends your sensibilities. regards @ndrew >>>I think it said trivial or near trivial as opposed to "way our of your >>>league". [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > killfile the top posters rather than seeming like the little boys you appear > to be. Sadly, I'm not a little boy any more, but I do have the heart of a small boy. (gratuitous setup for a Robert Block joke) > When I posted almost a year ago a number of references on this matter about > top posting and the fact that it did adhere to "Netiquette" some of you were > reduced to vitriol and abuse. Just let the top posters alone or ignore them > if it offends your sensibilities. New posters appear in AGE every now and then. They may not be aware that AGE is not a top posting newsgroup. Common advice to all people new to the newsgroup scene is to read a given group for a while before posting in order to learn what the conventions of the group are. However, some people don't bother doing this, or aren't aware of such general practice. So, when someone top posts, I (and several other regulars) will very likely jump in with a quick note that draws attention to the fact that they aren't following local convention, for two reasons. 1) in case they simply aren't aware, didn't pay attention, and missed the normal practice. 2) so that other people reading the newsgroup won't think "ah, some people top post, others don't, apparantly there is no norm here". Some groups top post, others don't, each newsgroup has its own local customs and practices. When in rome, do as the romans do. I could go into the why's and wherefores of whats better about bottom posting, but its been done. And to be honest, I can see (although dubiously) whats better about top posting, too. (just as I can see why early HP calculators used "reverse polish notation," easier to code and works just as well when you get used to it). But whats really bad is when threads run to a combination of top, bottom, and (the real convention of the newsgroup) contextual (which is to say, posting in the middle, response to each point under the part where the point is made, with liberal snipping of things you aren't responding to) posting: an unadulturated mess. If you could somehow convince every poster here to switch to top posting, it wouldn't be so bad. But since 90% contextual post, and half the remainder bottom post, it makes a lot more sense to try and persuade the 5% who top post to switch over to the norm, Even if you think top posting is a bit better in the long run. Killfiling the few who can't be persuaded to change helps a bit... but only a bit, as some people who don't top post themselves won't KF them, and will respond to them so I'll still see the mess, in fact the top post itself won't be as bad as the combination of top post and contextual post I'll actually be looking at... except where people go to the trouble of "fixing" the top posting by moving it down to the bottom, or snipping out whatever the top poster replied to. Splendid not to mention the more they hammer on it, certain people will continue out of sheer cussedness. ever babysat a terrorist two-year old? tell them no, and they will turn around and do whatever they are forbidden to do. keep telling them no, and they will keep doing it until you apply some not-PC correction. me? i prefer top posting, most of my NGs encourage top posting. as i said before i am not going to change my posting style for one newsgroup...and the more they hammer on it, the less likely i am to feel like bottom posting. if i get kill filed, oh well...i have gotten more than enough private emails complimenting me on posts that they only saw in reply and being told that they took me off their killfile due to my content and other posting aspects. aru and as i have said many times, i cut everything except the specific part i am replying to every chance i get, so it is not particularly hard to tell what i am referring to. > When I posted almost a year ago a number of references on this matter about > top posting and the fact that it did adhere to "Netiquette" some of you were [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > regards > @ndrew >me? i prefer top posting, most of my NGs encourage top posting. What puzzles me is what obscure newsgroups constitute "most of your NGs"? Because in the nearly 10 years I've been posting to newsgroups, and across nearly a hundred different ones, the closest thing to "encouraging" top-posting I've seen has been indifference to it. Most of them were just as quick as people here are to slam someone's peepee in the door for it. SignatureDark Tyger, keeper of the Nerf Railgun(tm) All hail the Thief.... On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:07:28 -0800 in <4e3kuvslidpvjn1gp8797t5i264m1c35kb@4ax.com>, Darktyger <darktyger@overthere.nothere> graced the world with this thought: >>me? i prefer top posting, most of my NGs encourage top posting. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >of them were just as quick as people here are to slam someone's peepee >in the door for it. Same here, I've yet to ever see a newsgroup that encourages top posting, the closest I've seen is that they simply don't give a damn, or, conversely, they don't have a bunch of people that subscribe that'll jump all over someone for it, nor do they have the other side of the coin, the people that argue themselves blue in the face about some supposed "right" to top post when asked by dozens of people not to. Yet, every time the subject comes up, the perp insists that all the newsgroups they read encourage it--but never mention what newsgroups those are... nor do they stand up to a google search that they <even post> in any other newsgroups whatsoever... sort of like this guy, who has a couple posts in an SCA newsgroup, all others here. So much for "most my newsgroups." Oh, yeah, and a quick look at the SCA newsgroup shows most people bottom post there, too. do you know how many email accounts i have? is it any business of yours if i post to a [for example] geek forum as cybrchik2003 to a fuzzy as bunyhugr and to alt sex whatever as seksychik0...all bogus examples by the way=) as you can see i have an earthlink account, which comes with 8 addresses. hot mail exists, as does [name]@justice.com or even [name]@findlaw.com [one that is long dead] for that matter, and many other free email account possibilities=) i think i even have a yahoo address because i am on a couple yahoo groups. if so i have never actually used it=\ ah, the infamous 'rialto' hm, i think i posted last to the rialto a few weeks ago, and before that on my old ISP about 8 months ago. I have a fairly lax posting history to the rialto, i am a lot more active in my own barony and kingdom. and i never claimed all, i said most...big difference. aru and my other interests? hm, in no particular order historical recreations, novaroma, SPQR, CDC issues [you should read morbidity and mortality weekly sometime, amazing data available] hazmat issues, health safety law, insurance law, science fiction of several different authors, steppes culture [hence the name aruvqan - a documentable female name for my sca persona] cooking of various eras and areas, the great barrier reef and i like some anime. > Yet, every time the subject comes up, the perp insists that all the > newsgroups they read encourage it--but never mention what newsgroups [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Oh, yeah, and a quick look at the SCA newsgroup shows most people > bottom post there, too. > do you know how many email accounts i have? > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > my sca persona] cooking of various eras and areas, the great barrier > reef and i like some anime. All of that is interesting, but I think the challenge has been made to actually name newsgroups (preferably ones in the interest areas you just recited) in which a demonstrable preference for top posting is prevalent. Bizbee's main thrust wasn't that you don't post anywhere else, but rather that you haven't presented evidence that indeed, on most of those other places you (hypothetically) post, top posting is the norm. No need to reveal what your identity on those other newgroups is if you are reluctant to mix such things (maintaining 8 or 9 addresses tends to indicate you care enough about that to make an effort), just naming them would be a good start. Splendid > > do you know how many email accounts i have? > > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Splendid Let me oblige with newsgroups that prefer top posting from my list: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati alt.internet.wireless aus.ads.forsale.computers.new aus.ads.forsale.computers.used comp.networks comp.os.-ms-windows.networking.windows comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking oh and news.soundblaster.com - products.soundblaster.audigy They all prefer top posting this is the only anal group I subscribe to. regards @ndrew > Let me oblige with newsgroups that prefer top posting from my list: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > comp.os.-ms-windows.networking.windows > comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking I took a browse around the newsgroups listed above. They all seem to prefer bottom posting. Are you a liar...or just stupid? Perhaps you just like being a dick? From the shadows, the mysterious beagle@dogs-like-spam.com (if that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered: >> Let me oblige with newsgroups that prefer top posting from my list: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >bottom posting. Are you a liar...or just stupid? Perhaps you just like being >a dick? All three? Could he go any lower? Have another look little boys just opened 50 posts in all group on my browser and all top posted in each of the groups. @ndrew > > Let me oblige with newsgroups that prefer top posting from my list: > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > bottom posting. Are you a liar...or just stupid? Perhaps you just like being > a dick? From the shadows, the mysterious "@ndrew" <andrewratinternodedotondotnet> (if that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered: >> > Let me oblige with newsgroups that prefer top posting from my list: >> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >being >> a dick? >Have another look little boys just opened 50 posts in all group on my >browser and all top posted in each of the groups. Think you better learn to operate your browser better, loser, because google tells a different story, and we can all see that. :-) >Have another look little boys just opened 50 posts in all group on my >browser and all top posted in each of the groups. I went and looked, and there does seem to be a higher percentage of awful top posted articles. But that's not because these groups prefer it. It's because those groups have a high percentage of naive Windows users who try to read and post to Usenet using Outlook Express which by default (ick) top posts. > >Have another look little boys just opened 50 posts in all group on my > >browser and all top posted in each of the groups. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > who try to read and post to Usenet using Outlook Express which by default > (ick) top posts. Thanks Wharf >> >Have another look little boys just opened 50 posts in all group on my >> >browser and all top posted in each of the groups. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Thanks Wharf You're thanking him for proving that the only newsgroups from your list that accept (which doesn't necessarily mean they approve of) top-posting are populated with posters who seem, in generally, mentally impaired? SignatureDark Tyger, keeper of the Nerf Railgun(tm) All hail the Thief.... On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 20:29:12 +1100 in <3feaade9$1@duster.adelaide.on.net>, "@ndrew" <andrewratinternodedotondotnet> graced the world with this thought: >> > do you know how many email accounts i have? >> > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] >regards >@ndrew wait... you said they prefer top posting, not that the people there were too ignorant to do otherwise. You've obviously listed a bunch of newsgroups with people who make a handful of posts and disappear... please take a moment and point us to their faq or a charter which encourages top posting.... And yet, interestingly, with a quick sample from several of those newsgroups, I see that most people bottom post.... except for you of course. Oh, wait... you've probably never read a faq or charter for any of these newsgroups at all, have you? We'll be waiting. <4e3kuvslidpvjn1gp8797t5i264m1c35kb@4ax.com>, Darktyger <darktyger@overthere.nothere> graced the world with this thought: >On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 20:18:09 GMT, Aruvqan <mtraber251@earthlink.net> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >of them were just as quick as people here are to slam someone's peepee >in the door for it. alt.fan.topposting at a guess. </humor attempt> -- Darkensolo - 64th Epic Dwarven Cleric Lizsolo Spiritmaster - 60th Epic Barbie BeastLord Proud members of "Fizzle Fiends" on Rodcet Nife not so much obscure, perhaps as not in your interest groups? not everybody has the same hobbys, eq is not among my main hobbys. i keep my hobbys pretty seperate in the belief that not every one of my friends/aquaintenances have to get along, and many of them would be outright antagonistic to others. and is top posting any worse than crossposting everything to alt sex whatever and flaming, and using crude language? i see an aweful lot of people feeding trolls that crosspost all over heck and gone. aru > What puzzles me is what obscure newsgroups constitute "most of your > NGs"? Because in the nearly 10 years I've been posting to newsgroups, > and across nearly a hundred different ones, the closest thing to > "encouraging" top-posting I've seen has been indifference to it. [NOTE: I'm top posting and bottom posting in this message to illustrate a point] Yes. For this particular post, where you had exactly one point I'm responding to, it is not too bad. However, if you had multiple points that I was responding to, this post would read much smoother to the reader if it is in the form "[your point #1] [my answer #1] [your point #2] [my answer #2] ...". Second, if I want to leave in the quote that you respond to, if we both top-post, it makes it even harder on the read. They basically have to skip down two quote levels, read a paragraph, skip up, read a paragraph, and then read my response. So, if I top-post in answer to your top-post, the reader is skipping all over the place to figure out what the hell is going on. > and is top posting any worse than crossposting everything to alt sex > whatever and flaming, and using crude language? Note that if I put my answer to you here, to make it more convenient to the reader, then Darktyger's material you quoted is down below, which is very confusing. >> What puzzles me is what obscure newsgroups constitute "most of your NGs"? >> Because in the nearly 10 years I've been posting to newsgroups, and >> across nearly a hundred different ones, the closest thing to >> "encouraging" top-posting I've seen has been indifference to it. If I put my answer here, Darktyger's stuff is between yours and mine, which also makes it harder for the reader. Now, let's look at it as if you had bottom-posted: >> What puzzles me is what obscure newsgroups constitute "most of your NGs"? >> Because in the nearly 10 years I've been posting to newsgroups, and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and is top posting any worse than crossposting everything to alt sex > whatever and flaming, and using crude language? I stick my response here, and it is easy for the reader to get as much context as they need...they just start scanning down, skipping Darktyger's quote if they recall it, or reading it if needed, flow through yours, and are right into mine. If you had multiple points, the post would read like a conversation. There's a reason that bottom-posting has been a strong convention on almost all usenet groups for nearly 20 years. It has been experimentally determined to work best, and so most people will do it. Worst of all is if a thread has mixed top-posting and bottom-posting. It is then a total mess for the reader. Signature--Tim Smith >>me? i prefer top posting, most of my NGs encourage top posting. > > What puzzles me is what obscure newsgroups constitute "most of your NGs"? > Because in the nearly 10 years I've been posting to newsgroups, Most of its non-EQ posts are in rec.org.sca, an examination of which shows follows normal usenet convention and mostly consists of bottom-posters, except for a few top-posters who've been told they are wrong and don't care. Signature--Tim Smith > not to mention the more they hammer on it, certain people will continue > out of sheer cussedness. ever babysat a terrorist two-year old? tell [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > i am replying to every chance i get, so it is not particularly hard to > tell what i am referring to. Yep, if you snip liberally, top posting isn't really problematic, merely mildly antisocial, and there's clearly no stopping you. I don't spend much time trying. But for new posters who may not realize they are going against the grain, I'll still give it a shot. After all, it takes so little effort on my part to just put a line in saying "A) Don't top post" Bottom posting really isn't any better than top posting. Mixed top and bottom posting is pretty annoying, though. Context posting is superior to any of the three, for long posts where you are responding to several different topics. If a newsgroup consists only of short comments and responses, and short threads, then contextual posting really looks just like bottom posting (or top posting, but I've never seen anyone do contextual posting where each comment is positioned over the point its referencing. Splendid /agree. i prefer to simply try to make my replies as simple as possible, and cut until i am essentially replying to no more than 2 people, and hopefully a paragraph per person. Not fond of people who paraphrase a long post, but sometimes it is better done that way. a few people i know can do a great job paraphrasing a long post using the format of: bizbee said <paraphrase> lance replied < paraphrase> rumbledore countered with <paraphrase> and I think - their text. i run into that on my electronic publishing group. it probably helps that [other than it is moderated and fairly closed...] that the list is very serious, full of publishers and editors who do 'clarity' for a living and caters to a fairly closed group of people. > Bottom posting really isn't any better than top posting. Mixed top and > bottom posting is pretty annoying, though. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Splendid > /agree. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > and I think - > their text. Wouldn't that be bottom posting with snippage? You are supposed to be defending top posting (which, with snippage, I maintain isn't inherantly wrong) Should have been: I think - new message text here rumbledor countered with lance replied (to bizbee) Bizbee originally said (thread start) But unless the snippage is really brutal, even that long a series of thread quotes is a bit confusing unless its the way everyone does it. Splendid notice quote=) >> a few people i know can do a great job >> paraphrasing a long post using the format of: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > You are supposed to be defending top posting (which, with snippage, I > maintain isn't inherantly wrong) > notice quote=) > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> You are supposed to be defending top posting (which, with snippage, I >> maintain isn't inherantly wrong) I'm probably missing something but your hint isn't enough to clue me in. You did top post the hint though. Splendid unsnipped. *i* posted that 'a few people i know ... using a format of:' not that *i* use that format. simply commenting that a few people i know [mostly professional wordsmiths] can competently use a specific format i normally dont prefer because to paraphrase coherently can take a fair amount of skill that many people lack. aru >> notice quote=) >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Splendid On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 20:18:09 GMT in <5wmGb.18141$Pg1.10984@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Aruvqan <mtraber251@earthlink.net> graced the world with this thought: >me? i prefer top posting, most of my NGs encourage top posting. as i >said before i am not going to change my posting style for one >newsgroup. dude, you have no posting history in any other newsgroups, so quit talking out your a.s. If you can change your name and email address to post, then you can do what people request, unless you're a complete pinhead, which is probably why I had to dig your a.s out of my killfile to answer this in the first place. Matter of fact your "my other newsgroups," comment, and the lack of any other posts on usenet (besides here) is why I put you there in the first place. Name all these other newsgroups, or admit your lying... please. I'd like to get this cleared up. and this type of reply is exactly going to have me not discuss any other email addresses i happen to use, or what groups i am on. Deal with it. I try to be very civil. I dont accuse people of lying. I certainly don't waste the time trying to google for a newsgroup denizen on the grounds that they probably arent using their main email account. as you can see by my earthlink tag, i am using an auto-issue account without bothering to change the issued ID. aru > dude, you have no posting history in any other newsgroups, so quit > talking out your a.s. If you can change your name and email address to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Name all these other newsgroups, or admit your lying... please. I'd > like to get this cleared up. From the shadows, the mysterious Aruvqan <mtraber251@earthlink.net> (if that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered: >and this type of reply is exactly going to have me not discuss any other >email addresses i happen to use, or what groups i am on. Deal with it. LOL Busted! :-D >and this type of reply is exactly going to have me not discuss any other >email addresses i happen to use, or what groups i am on. Deal with it. How convenient. SignatureDark Tyger, keeper of the Nerf Railgun(tm) All hail the Thief.... No point talking to Biz mate .. he is an anonymous poster ever since I busted him with his feeble attempts on other newsgroups. regards @ndrew > and this type of reply is exactly going to have me not discuss any other > email addresses i happen to use, or what groups i am on. Deal with it. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Name all these other newsgroups, or admit your lying... please. I'd > > like to get this cleared up. From the shadows, the mysterious "@ndrew" <andrewratinternodedotondotnet> (if that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered: >No point talking to Biz mate .. he is an anonymous poster ever since I >busted him with his feeble attempts on other newsgroups. Someone else full of sh.t. Funny how the rabid topposters all seem to be the least intelligent people around. > From the shadows, the mysterious "@ndrew" > <andrewratinternodedotondotnet> (if that IS his real name) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Funny how the rabid topposters all seem to be the least intelligent > people around. Funny how a lot of the bottom posters can only use profanity and vitriol when they are shown to be wrong. >> Funny how the rabid topposters all seem to be the least intelligent >> people around. > >Funny how a lot of the bottom posters can only use profanity and vitriol >when they are shown to be wrong. Well, we'll see if you're right as soon as you prove someone wrong, won't we? Still waiting on that, though. SignatureDark Tyger, keeper of the Nerf Railgun(tm) All hail the Thief.... > >> Funny how the rabid topposters all seem to be the least intelligent > >> people around. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Well, we'll see if you're right as soon as you prove someone wrong, > won't we? Still waiting on that, though. You will note I posted a list of my newsgroups "bottom post btw" that are all top posting @ndrew >> Well, we'll see if you're right as soon as you prove someone wrong, >> won't we? Still waiting on that, though. > >You will note I posted a list of my newsgroups "bottom post btw" that are >all top posting And that proves only that some newsgroups out there don't hold any standards of bottom posting vs top-posting. No proof that these groups aren't oddities... SignatureDark Tyger, keeper of the Nerf Railgun(tm) All hail the Thief.... From the shadows, the mysterious Darktyger <darktyger@overthere.nothere> (if that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered: >>> Well, we'll see if you're right as soon as you prove someone wrong, >>> won't we? Still waiting on that, though. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >standards of bottom posting vs top-posting. No proof that these groups >aren't oddities... And since its now been proven almost the entire list he gave bottom posts, they aren't even that. But then, I guess the kid never thought anyone would check him. Poor fellow, he's really going to be unprepared for working in the real world. :-) > From the shadows, the mysterious Darktyger > <darktyger@overthere.nothere> (if that IS his real name) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > fellow, he's really going to be unprepared for working in the real > world. :-) Now I will resort to a comment here you are a liar Ben Sisson who flouts the news group "netiquette" to suit himself .. typical of a pre-pubescent who really has no scruples or idea of what happens in the real world. You have made no comment about my post to Lance about the 10 Commandments of news group etiquette because you know you cannot defend yourself ... you are worst than the top posters you denigrate. I posted my newsgroup list fully knowing that you and others would check them .. they are majority top posting ... I accept that not all newsgroups are top posting .. that has never been my contention .. refer back to my original post to Lance. Feel free to plonk me ... a pre-pubsecent would do that next. @ndrew >I posted my newsgroup list fully knowing that you and others would check >them .. they are majority top posting ... I accept that not all newsgroups >are top posting .. that has never been my contention .. refer back to my >original post to Lance. > >Feel free to plonk me ... a pre-pubsecent would do that next. I checked comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking and apart from being deathly quiet (less than 100 posts on my server) around 65% of the posters were bottom posters. Signature[65 Forest Stalker] Schadenfreude (Human) [65 Prophet] Spetsnas (Iksar) Bristlebane server From the shadows, the mysterious "@ndrew" <andrewratinternodedotondotnet> (if that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered: >> From the shadows, the mysterious Darktyger >> <darktyger@overthere.nothere> (if that IS his real name) [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >Feel free to plonk me ... a pre-pubsecent would do that next. Do you have ANYTHING to offer besides silly accusations of everyone but you being a "pre-pubescent"? So far you've been owned so badly by everyone in this thread it would be a disservice to plonk you - stupidity on your level is too rare to ignore. Still waiting for you to admit that most the newsgroups you posted actually bottompost, and those people in them that don't appear to be as clueless as you are. :-) > From the shadows, the mysterious "@ndrew" > <andrewratinternodedotondotnet> (if that IS his real name) [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > :-) If you have carefully read my posts you are the only one I have accused of being pre-pubescent with your behaviour ... although the Kitty would come close. @ndrew >If you have carefully read my posts you are the only one I have accused of >being pre-pubescent with your behaviour ... although the Kitty would come >close. Given the accusation, the response is not only accurate but appropriate: I know you are, but what am I? :) SignatureDark Tyger, keeper of the Nerf Railgun(tm) All hail the Thief.... From the shadows, the mysterious "@ndrew" <andrewratinternodedotondotnet> (if that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered: >> From the shadows, the mysterious "@ndrew" >> <andrewratinternodedotondotnet> (if that IS his real name) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Funny how a lot of the bottom posters can only use profanity and vitriol >when they are shown to be wrong. You haven't shown jack, fucktard. >>From the shadows, the mysterious "@ndrew" >><andrewratinternodedotondotnet> (if that IS his real name) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Funny how a lot of the bottom posters can only use profanity and vitriol > when they are shown to be wrong. A) nobody has shown the bottom poster crowd wrong in this thread, so far. B) Many of the bottom posters here will use profanity and vitriol well in advance of being proven wrong, or right, or indeed before having their first cup of coffee on xmas morning. I don't see a causal connection one direction or the other. C) Yes, I admit it, I did have to run my spell checker, and causual isn't correct. But at least I knew I didn't mean casual. Splendid <snipped> > A) nobody has shown the bottom poster crowd wrong in this thread, so far. I did actually post a list of top posting newsgroup I subscribe to ... none of these groups bottom post by default. > B) Many of the bottom posters here will use profanity and vitriol well > in advance of being proven wrong, or right, or indeed before having > their first cup of coffee on xmas morning. I don't see a causal > connection one direction or the other. I think there is a causal connection with most .. I get the impression they are likely to be pre-pubescent children. > C) Yes, I admit it, I did have to run my spell checker, and causual > isn't correct. But at least I knew I didn't mean casual. LOL ... causal was correct > Splendid > <snipped> > >>A) nobody has shown the bottom poster crowd wrong in this thread, so far. > > I did actually post a list of top posting newsgroup I subscribe to ... none > of these groups bottom post by default. Another logical difficulty for you. Five groups, ten, a hundred, that support top posting, don't prove that the majority of groups you visit, much less the majority of groups out there on usenet do. I'm a bit confused though, are you also Aruvqan? Switching from Aruvgan to @ndrew midstream has caused me not to respond there, as I'd -like- to note that the threads you name: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati alt.internet.wireless aus.ads.forsale.computers.new aus.ads.forsale.computers.used comp.networks comp.os.-ms-windows.networking.windows comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.networking oh and news.soundblaster.com - products.soundblaster.audigy Don't seem to have anything to do with the posted lists of interests of Aruvgan: historical recreations, novaroma, SPQR, CDC issues [you should read morbidity and mortality weekly sometime, amazing data available] hazmat issues, health safety law, insurance law, science fiction of several different authors, steppes culture [hence the name aruvqan - a documentable female name for my sca persona] cooking of various eras and areas, the great barrier reef and i like some anime. And yet you say "They all prefer top posting this is the only anal group I subscribe to." I didn't call attention to this for fear that Aruvgan and @ndrew were two different people after all. >>B) Many of the bottom posters here will use profanity and vitriol well >>in advance of being proven wrong, or right, or indeed before having [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I think there is a causal connection with most .. I get the impression they > are likely to be pre-pubescent children. Well, most people in this newsgroup are bottom (or more likely contextual) posters, most aren't vitriolic, most aren't even in this thread. Those who -are- coming out like rabid pit bulls are the ones that come |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message