On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 22:43:14 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm,
Barney-Killer quickly quoth:

For what it's worth, I prefer top-posting.

Zero. Zip. Nada. ALL your posts on RCM (4) have been to OT threads
anyway.


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.

(see sig)


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.

Agreed.


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.

Trim and interstitially reply. Posts then look like FAQs and are
much more readable to everyone.


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!

Needlessly? Hah! As to rank, yes we do. We can plonk all your sorry
top-posting asses (as I did you awhile ago) and not have to put up
with it.


--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?