Posted by Justin on 10/18/05 04:56

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.

>> 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.

>> 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?

>> 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?

[Back to original message]