Where is our FAQ?

You could try contacting the people at virtual-ink.com.au

There are archived versions of the FAQ here:

*/

All of the archived pages are the same - about Chianti Classico and other Chianti.. I'm using Netscape 8.1 Is that all that is archived or do I have a browser conflict??

Here is a link to our FAQ---I now have it save under my favorites. I have no clue about getting it online.

I left the link out: Here is our FAQ---Pray my hard drive doesn't punk out (again).

"Joe "Beppe"Rosenberg" Here is a link to our FAQ---I now have it save under my favorites. I have no

Dear Joe,

Would the following be what you are looking for?

I can't find the following question or the answer to it in the document. Does this news group prefer to post replies above or below the original post?

John Roenigk Austin, Texas

Joe "Beppe"Rosenberg wrote:

Good Lord, below. Top posting is discouraged. Unless your name is Joe Beppe, who gets a special papal dispensation. Or is that Sumerian dispensation.

How big is the faq? I could host it at adelka.com if the size is reasonable.

-E

Below it shall be, then.

The document I located called guide.htm and was 34.7KB in size.

"John Roenigk" in news:%wMHf.1117$ snipped-for-privacy@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

John, I won't presume to speak for current newsgroup readers, or even regulars. But for the record, that would be an atypical topic for a longtime newsgroup's FAQ. It surfaced as a subject of chronic argument on newsgroups only some six years ago (late 1999 to early 2000, a period when I was not reading, BTW) and most established newsgroups' FAQs are older than that. "Top posting" is a matter of much personal preference and (in late years) loud opinion, and very little objective information. It is not the longstanding format for newsgroup postings. It can be seen occasionally though from the beginning. Someone who is, say, embedding multiple quotations in a well-crafted response can employ it effectively, among other tools to place emphasis. But that is someone who is using it under control, as a compositional tool. The usual objection came about from people doing it mechanistically because that's how their latter-day news readers were set up (sometimes matching an email convention). For many more years than not, the standard programs that people used to post to newsgroups automatically quoted the older material first, and therefore t h e i s s u e d i d n o t a r i s e. A larger, much older issue (sometimes mistakenly conflated) is to include past material for orientation, but e d i t i t d o w n.

A little more history, if you are interested, appeared 4 Jan 2006 in rec.food.cooking news: snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com

currently Google-archived at

I liken "top posting" to passive verb voice in written English. Some writers lean on it unconsciously (especially the academic and the illiterate ;-), others rail against it, just as mechanistically. As Mary-Claire van Leunen said in her _Handbook for Scholars,_ which many US scholars badly need to read by the way and which was, by happy coincidence, contempraneous with the invention of newsgroups (1979), passivity is a useful valuable tool but only if you understand it.

Yours for mots justes -- Max

[snip as always interesting post]

Hi Max,

Somehow I knew you would chime in here! :)

Where is Harm Ellens? I don't recall seeing post from him in some time. Google has his last post here in april 2003.

-E