Two kinds of idiots

Because that's what 95+% of top posters do.













In article .net>, SVTKate wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote
>
>| In article .net>,
> SVTKate wrote:
>|
>| Yes, because it forces all the work on the other person. and it puts
>| things out out of order. Most top posters, including the one I responded
>| to, don't even bother to trim.
>
> How do you figure that?
> I think that bottom posting makes it harder to find the replies.
> You have to sort through all the rest to find a single response.
>
>
>|
>| The only reason top posting occurs so much now, is because of microsoft
>| crapware.
>
> Ya know what? I am damn sick and tired of people capping on OE.
> I happen to LIKE it. So do allot of other people. I've tried a bunch of
> other readers, and have yet to find anything I liked as well.
>
> I like it's format, I like the fact that it is integrated with my email and
> I like the way it works.
> It has some bugs.. so what!
> So does my ****ing Mustang, that doesn't make me like it any less.
>
> Kate
>
>

Wastes my time scrolling down to see who the hell they were replying to.
Often I only want to see a certain branch, or just read posts replying to
mine. With the attributions first, I can see that right off. Also the
garbage builds up at the bottom because the vast majority of top posters
don't do any cleaning. This is why I top post in all threads on top
posting. I intentionally post the way the vast majority of top posters
do, until it becomes irritating to the top posters.

See, some people still use dialup connections too, they don't want to
deal with all the garbage at the bottom. (I don't but occasionally the
connection to the news server is slow)

Also, top posting is a great way to hide context, and ignore points the
other person has made.


In article .net>, SVTKate wrote:
> Wasteful?
> How so?
> Is it ruining our rain forests? Using ink? Polluting something?
> Taking up valuable space in an overcrowded world?
>
> Wasting Bandwidth? In today's world? Seriously?.
> In a plain text format?
> WHoo hoo.. the message I am responding to is a WHOLE 4kb!
>
> That's like comparing a Mustnag II to today's '05.
> Things have changed!
>
> Now, if it's in a group that posts photos and html, then yea, you have a
> point. Deleting images from a reply is just courtesy.
>
> "Brent P" >
>| Well it slows things down, is wasteful, hard to follow, messy. If you are
>| refering to pushing the work on others, well it's just plain rude.
>|
>
>
> Pushing WHAT work on others??????
> No one says you HAVE to delete it or pick through it.
>
> Te reason for top posting is so you DON'T have to wade through it. Even
> bottom feeders leave all the junk in a post.
>
> C'mon Brent... it's really not that big of a deal who's on top.
>
> Kate
> "I'll post where I want to until it's a ticketable offence"
>
>

Really? I've seen 1000 line posts when two top posters went at it. Posts
so long that I would have to wait on a broadband connection. Back when I
was using modem connections, these would really suck.

Also, 95+% of top posters I've encountered don't trim, don't do any work
what so ever, they expect other people to do it. There are a few idiot
bottom posters who do the same. No trimming what so ever. Posts that are
practically unreadable except for the new content.

As I stated before, it's also a good way just to ignore points the other
person has made.







In article >, Joe wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> Well it slows things down, is wasteful, hard to follow, messy. If
>> you are refering to pushing the work on others, well it's just plain
>> rude.
>
> Not to usurp Kate's response, but the above is simply bull****.
>
>
>> In article >, Joe
>> wrote:
>>> So what?
>>>
>>>
>>> (Brent P) wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And if we keep top posting long enough, the last post in the
>>>> thread will be a 1000 lines wrong. That's why I start top posting
>>>> when someone decides to argue with me that it's ok. If I top post
>>>> long enough, they begin to get the point. See, top posting doesn't
>>>> work well when neither party is doing the clean up work. Top
>>>> posters function because others are doing the clean up
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In article >, Joe
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I tend to follow the leader. If I respond to a top post (like
>>>>> this one), I'll top post. If I respond to a bottom post, I'll
>>>>> bottom post. Real easy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Joe
>>>>> Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies
>>>>> Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (Brent P) wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> .net>, SVTKate
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, because it forces all the work on the other person. and it
>>>>>> puts things out out of order. Most top posters, including the
>>>>>> one I responded to, don't even bother to trim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only reason top posting occurs so much now, is because of
>>>>>> microsoft crapware.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because someone top posts that makes them disrespectful?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it makes it easier to read the comment wiithout having
>>>>>>> to sort through the whole post.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Back in the day" top posting was considered a no-no, times
>>>>>>> have changed. You may as well get used to it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kate
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Brent P" > wrote
>>>>>>>| You haven't been arguing from 'authority', top posting and
>>>>>>>| ignoring my points that is not respect.
>>>>>>>|
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *snipped for clarity*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>

In article et>, SVTKate wrote:

> "Brent P" > wrote

> Because without all of those laws, the jackasses in Washington wouldn't have
> a job making more.
> Your paragraph above Brent is, IMHO, right on the money.

It expands their power and the money at their disposal. It also gives a
way to target threats and undeseriables.


>| Do you obey 55 mph interstate speed limits?
>| I'll wager in any give day you commit more moving violations than I do.

> Again I agree. I always push the interstate speed limits 5-9 mph over.
> Out here, if the speed limit is 45, they drive 55-60.
> If it's 70, they are driving 80-85.
> I feel like an idiot allot of the time because everyone is passing me.
> It's not as though I don't WANT to go that fast, BUT I just do not want that
> ticket.

People usually do what they feel comfortable with, modified with
consideration to enforcement. Most interstates are good to about 85mph
with a modern car. IL state police drive 85-90mph most times I see them
these days. Same with local cops if they are using the interstates around
me. There is no speed limit on an interstate higher than 55mph that I
drive regularly. Most cruise at speeds significantly (15+mph) higher than
55mph.

The saturday I went to see the SN65, I got on I294 to head to my house
and I was just barely gaining on traffic ahead of me, as in it would take
miles before I passed them. So maybe +1-2mph. I had someone on my ass, as
if I were going excessively slow. I was in the second lane from the
right, passing traffic on my right with about a 5mph differential.
Traffic to my left was passing me. I glanced down at the speedo when I
saw I was being tailgated. Let's just say I was driving cop speed.

In article >, Joe wrote:

> Kate, I really thought you had more sense than this. What did you
> tell your kids when they learned to drive? That going 5mph over the
> limit is just fine because "everybody does it"? Did you tell them
> that the law is only a "suggestion"?

So all laws are good and need to be obeyed because their laws eh?
Did your grandfather drink during prohibition? Would you?
Do you know how many laws you break in a day? I can't even tell you how
many I break. There are so many laws about this and that, I don't even
know them all. And I know and follow many many more than most people.

I even know that as an adult I cannot legally ride a bicycle on the
sidewalk. Numerous driver's insist on it however. The law states to use
the road and ride by the letter of the IL vehicle code.

In article >, RichA wrote:

> I would personally like them to do this; Raise speed limits on
> highways to 80mph, with the admonition that anyone caught going
> over that limit would be fined far more heavily than they are now.

That would be excellent. But the problem is, it would mean enforcing
speed limits for safety instead of profit. Enforcing for safety costs
money, enforcing for profit makes money.

In article >, Joe wrote:

> You're simply wrong. The single reason is the law. Go above the
> limit and risk getting a ticket with points.

Drive the limit or below and become suspicious for driving too slowly.

> Don't mix apples and oranges. Driving dangerously had nothing to do
> with the speed limit.

BINGO! Now then we get to the point, speed limits are about MONEY, not
safety.

In article .net>, SVTKate wrote:

> But seriously, how many poeple do you know that do the exact speed limit? I
> mean that will admit to always going the limit.

The ISP has been threatening to use photo radar in construction zones.
I've been slowing to the posted 45mph speed instead of the customary
55-65 depending on the road conditions. I keep to the right, and man have
I been ****ing people off. A few times I had to accelerate just to avoid
being crashed into. I how have to balance my safety vs. the law. There
should never be such a condition.

In article >, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
> I remember talking to an old VDOT employee several years ago and he told
> me how they determined speed limits before the design of roadways became
> standardized. They observed the actual traffic speed, plugged those
> numbers into an equation (nothing complicated I'm sure), rounded to the
> nearest multiple of 5 mph and that number was the speed limit. Too bad
> this still isn't the way it is done.

85th percentile method. It's been found to lead to the safest conditions
and best flows. It's oppsed by the insurance companies that surcharge on
speeding tickets, local governments that make money on speeding tickets,
state governments that get money from speeding tickets. Basically anyone
that profits from speed limits set lower than people actually drive.

It's based on the simple principle that most people will choose a
reasonable speed. However, nannys and control freaks would rather impose
their desired number.

In article >, Joe wrote:
> Within the last few years, they raised the speed limit on I-75 down
> here to 70. It was 65, and everybody did 80-85, so they redid their
> study and agreed that it was certainly safe to raise it to 70. So now
> everybody does 80-90.

And until the threat of enforcement is no longer surpressing speeds, they
will not be able to measure the real 85th percentile. If you are trying
to get to a proper speed limit from below, it will take a few iterations.
This is _normal_.