For what it's worth, I prefer top-posting.
If I'm following a thread of interest closely enough (and if I wasn't
interested, I just wouldn't follow it at all....), I don't have any
problem keeping context with top-postings.
What really burns my a$$ is having to scroll down thru three pages of
quoted crap to see a response that is only three words long, and
totally irrelevant.

So top-post, or bottom post as you prefer. I 'm more liable to
killfile people who bottom post, especially when they don't have
enough sense to TRIM THE QUOTED CRAP to just the "needed" length.

Kudos to you George


BK


On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 21:49:59 -0500, "George Willer"
wrote:

Larry and Bill,

You both are right. Your opinions are predicated on the willingness of
folks to delete everything not necessary to keep the new post in context.
Here in the real world that isn't the case and for that reason I'm sure many
of us will prefer the new posts at the top. If you are having problems with
context it should be you to do the simple scrolling, enough to establish
context and no more.

Insulting top posters needlessly isn't productive. One thing to remember...
on usenet you guys have no rank to pull!

George Willer


At the end of the day, it's about communication. If you can save one
reader a few seconds, then you have saved hundreds if not thousands the
same time - it all adds up. And they will thank you for it: not
necessarily by overt actions, but in the overall impression that your
postings make on them ("Win Friends and Influence People"). That is why
bottom posting after appropriate quoting has been found over the years
to be the best quoting method.


Balls! If it's about communication, then the reply should come first.

So sue me...


BK