From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,caabf5265fad78e5
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!news.netcologne.de!newsfeed-fusi2.netcologne.de!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!noris.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:49:21 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.tsoh.plus-bug.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de>
Reply-To: rm.tsoh+bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: unsigned type
References: <MJS1m.405325$4m1.207186@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
  <8b44f88e-b56d-4e2d-a0d4-6d4229ce695c@g1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
 <8E82m.407788$4m1.87083@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
In-Reply-To: <8E82m.407788$4m1.87083@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4a4936e1$0$31871$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Jun 2009 23:49:22 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: e3f57766.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=8bmC`9Mo0dWE47KDAk81NWMcF=Q^Z^V3X4Fo<]lROoRQ^YC2XCjHcbYnO``l<IgLE_A:ho7QcPOVSed5V2gRG2;Vc3Io^=Vg>9[
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:6735
Date: 2009-06-29T23:49:22+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

anon wrote:
 [regarding top posting]
>         From the APA, or any publishing company, even computer literature 
> and etc. All references are at the bottom or back of the chapter/section and 
> the main references are always at the back of the book.


The style you mention ("top posting@, everything else in notes
or parens) is adequate when typical highfalutin publication
rules do matter;  I'd consider usenet postings much closer
to the more spontaneous work done *before* you publish a paper
that respects traditional formal outfit: others discuss it
with you, and/or read it armed with pencils.

To me, usenet means "it'll be very kind if you pick up a red
pen and mark my errors. Also you'll likely be doing us a favor
if you write some annotations next to what I have written".

For this style of "immediate" text work, chopping the
original and injecting remarks hat merits, I think.