On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 07:33:17 -0600, the infamous "Leon"
scrawled the following:


"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...
On 3/6/2010 11:13 AM Kate spake thus:
I post all over the place. It makes those that are more anal retentive
than I am absolutely crazy.

No, it just makes you look like an idiot.

Sorry, Kate, but I agree with David's horrible, nasty, ugly, vicious,
hateful, war-mongering response.
(See? Other folks can overreact, too, Lew.


But please do whatever you want.

Tolerance is his virtue. I've plonked half the topposters I've read.


I think the idiot is the one that needs to look through all the mess to get
to the reply. Basically the one that cannot remember what he just read in
the immediate above post. Why reread each time if you have any kind of
memory. Why not for those that can keep up do we need to have the response
at the bottom?

Why? For it to be a logical response, especially on proper
(bottom-posted, or interstitial if for multiple phrase replies like
this one) responses. It's not as bad when the original post and
answer both fit on the screen but it's still a real bother for a lot
of people. That said, yes, more people should snip their quotes to
only the relevant info. (BTW, topposters never snip anything at all,
adding unnecessary delay to Usenet use for everyone.) sniffle


So to in response to your probable response, If you have not read the whole
thread or your computer does not show the previous response, read the
statement below the top posted response.

What about those who don't have time to read the posts every day, or
just started reading the newsgroup?

For those of you who find it hard to bottom-post, get a decent
freakin' _newsreader_, fer chrissake! Usenet isn't rocket science.

--
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?