|
|
Posted by Eric Gisin on 10/18/05 15:46
"Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message news:slrndl904l.tdm.nospam@debian.dns2go.com...
> Eric Gisin wrote on [Mon, 17 Oct 2005 21:03:54 -0700]:
> > "Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:slrndl8fm1.sg8.nospam@debian.dns2go.com...
> >>
> >> Because not everyone receives every post in order, or at all. There may
> >> not BE a rest of the crap.
> >>
> > Bullshit. UUCP is long gone.
>
> Oh, yes. Someone who doesn't know the difference between their arse and
> a hole in the ground. It still happens often enough.
>
Take your meds, and the delusions go away.
> >> If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
> >> summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just enough
> >> text of the original to give a context. This will make sure readers
> >> understand when they start to read your response. Since NetNews,
> >> especially, is proliferated by distributing the postings from one host
> >> to another, it is possible to see a response to a message before seeing
> >> the original.
> >>
> > Bullshit. Almost never happens.
>
> Bullshit, happens all the time.
>
Fucking clueless. Change ISPs if it does.
> >> Top-posting makes posts incomprehensible. Firstly: In normal
> >> conversations, one does not answer to something that has not yet been
> >> said. So it is unclear to reply to the top, whilst the original message
> >
> > Bullshit. Ever seen a blog, change log, etc.
>
> You mean a blog where all the responses come AFTER the initial posts and
> whatever responses they are replying to?
>
Fucking clueless. Stop doing crack.
> >> is at the bottom. Secondly: In western society a book is normally read
> >> from top to bottom. Top-posting forces one to stray from this
> >> convention: Reading some at the top, skipping to the bottom to read the
> >> question, and going back to the top to continue. This annoyance
> >> increases even more than linear with the number of top-posts in the
> >> message. If someone replies to a thread and you forgot what the thread
> >> was all about, or that thread was incomplete for some reasons, it will
> >> be quite tiresome to rapidly understand what the thread was all about,
> >> due to bad posting and irrelevant text which has not been removed.
> >
> > More bullshit.
>
> You read from bottom to top, do you?
>
I only read the reply. Only a fucking moron reads the quoted text.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|