"idiot" is not an intelligent counterpoint. The best argument anyone
has made for bottom posting so far is that an assumption is made that
the quoted material will need to be read each and every time, and that
going below the new material to get to it is too confusing.
I and others have shown that those assumptions are not always true,
and in fact OFTEN aren't. Just because someone at Intel wrote a memo
and it was posted on a university node as a guide, is not a reason to
start bottom posting. I'm someone who deals in the practicality of it
and that to me, is that one often (even mostly) doesn't need to
re-read quoted material, and that on those times it is needed, it is
NOT too confusing to do so.
So if it has come down to an argument of quantifying how often the
quoted material needs to be read or to extent it is confusing to look
below the new material to see it if it is needed, then we could argue
all day. Since I usually have ALREADY read the posts in the thread
that are being quoted, I RARELY need to read them over and over again.
Also, when I do need to, I don't find it confusing in the least to
look below for it. I supposed people's mileage may vary depending on
their memory sharpness and reading comprehension skills.
Now tell us how smart you are again.
That depends on the veracity of the statement. In this case, I think it was
more of an observation than a counterpoint.
The best argument anyone
I don't remember anyone saying "each and every time", but I think most times
would be accurate.
The only thing that you have shown is that you are too lazy to trim and
Just because someone at Intel wrote a memo
It has nothing to do with who "wrote a memo", though you seem to be hung up
on that point. Whazza matter, they forget to run it by you, first?
I'm someone who deals in the practicality of it
Yes, it's all about YOU, isn't it. Whatever is easiest for YOU. To hell with
everyone else. (especially since YOU didn't write the memo)
them over and over again.
"Since I usually have ALREADY read"
"I RARELY need to read"
"when I do need to, I don't find it"
See what I mean? It's all about YOU. No consideration for anyone else.
I participate in ten different NG's, and read several others. It's not
obvious who the new posts are replying to, let alone what the context of the
message is, especially in long threads like this one. It is almost always
helpful to have a bit of quoted text before the reply to refresh the memory.
Otherwise I have to scroll down to get the context and in your case, you
often don't trim the quoted material below which makes it even worse.
No point in restating the obvious to a deaf person.
Hey dipshit, it's not all about me. I'm merely using my experiences
as an example of not just what I, but many others also share. It
would have been more proper to say "we" to include others who agree,
but I normally don't like to be in the habit of speaking for others.
And you damn sure don't get to speak for me.
I just had to hit page down 28 times before I say the start of your
new material Mike. It was bottom posted, not interspersed posted.
All the material I scrolled past I have ALREADY read in other
messages. You and Dizzy must be morons if you can't get it.
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 20:20:34 -0500, "Mike Hunter"
Dizzy my mentally challenged fellow.... I criticized bottom posting,
and you answered the criticisms leveled by defending interspersed
posting. I wasn't attacking that. Interspersed quoting/replying is
an excellent method (and I've used it to advantage on many occasion),
but it only lends itself appropriate in certain cases. In the
remaining cases, top or bottom posting is used. The debate here, is
the relative merits of top and bottom posting. You keep demonstrating
your lack of intelligence almost daily.
Which one do you use, just out of curiousity?
I'm not exactly a newsgroup connoisseur, and I've been using xnews for
absolute years. Honestly, haven't compared it to much of anything other than
that crappy outlook express feature.
email@example.com (SgtSilicon) wrote in
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.