If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by PeterD on August 22, 2009, 7:23 pm
wrote:
>I have never, ever, understood the fetish some folks have about top-posting.
>Clearly, it should be the preferred method, as it makes more sense. For
>that reason, I will always follow that format.
>James
Well, the desirability has been shown, and if people don't understand
why it is best to bottom post, so be it. People also should know not
to drink and drive, jump out of planes without working tested chutes,
etc., but don't always follow through.
|
|
Posted by George on August 22, 2009, 7:36 pm
James wrote:
> I have never, ever, understood the fetish some folks have about top-posting.
> Clearly, it should be the preferred method, as it makes more sense. For
> that reason, I will always follow that format.
>
> James
>
>
Often simple politeness makes the most sense. If 99% of the people in a
group do something one way it is just impolite and rude to make a
declaration that some other way "makes more sense" as your justification
for doing it contrary to the usual method.
|
|
Posted by jloomis on August 22, 2009, 8:35 pm
Hi James....
Not sure if I am bottom or top posting, and have never been criticized in
any news group I have been in. this is a first.
Can you explain to me what I did wrong for you to get all bothered?
I just replyed to a message that was sent to the group with a simple reply
to group.
sorry.....
john
>I have never, ever, understood the fetish some folks have about
>top-posting.
> Clearly, it should be the preferred method, as it makes more sense. For
> that reason, I will always follow that format.
> James
>
|
|
Posted by PeterD on August 23, 2009, 9:55 am
wrote:
>>I have never, ever, understood the fetish some folks have about
>>top-posting.
>> Clearly, it should be the preferred method, as it makes more sense. For
>> that reason, I will always follow that format.
>> James
>>
>Hi James....
>Not sure if I am bottom or top posting, and have never been criticized in
>any news group I have been in. this is a first.
>Can you explain to me what I did wrong for you to get all bothered?
>I just replyed to a message that was sent to the group with a simple reply
>to group.
>sorry.....
>john
John, read my reply with the two examples and maybe you can see what
I'm talking about.
Nice thing about this group is that we are all civilized, and (so far)
are not throwing rocks and bottles at each other! <g>
|
|
Posted by James on August 23, 2009, 11:34 am
No problem John, your posting is just fine.
James
--------------------------------------
Hi James....
Not sure if I am bottom or top posting, and have never been criticized in
any news group I have been in. this is a first.
Can you explain to me what I did wrong for you to get all bothered?
I just replyed to a message that was sent to the group with a simple reply
to group.
sorry.....
john
|
Page 4 of 4 << first < 1 2 3
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Re: Foundation Too Low on a New Home | June 30, 2006, 12:13 am |
| Re: Foundation Too Low on a New Home | June 30, 2006, 10:14 am |
| Re: Cracked Foundation | December 16, 2006, 1:22 am |
| How shallow can foundation be? | December 22, 2006, 8:36 am |
| Securing new foundation to old | January 6, 2007, 8:49 pm |
| Damp Foundation | March 28, 2007, 5:43 pm |
| Foundation question | April 11, 2009, 9:41 pm |
| Two parallel trenches for foundation | July 19, 2006, 10:36 am |
| foundation / settling problem | October 4, 2006, 12:10 pm |
| Skid foundation support | October 16, 2006, 10:38 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap
>Clearly, it should be the preferred method, as it makes more sense. For
>that reason, I will always follow that format.
>James