Toyota, GM, and Ford differences

No. Top-posting is an inferior way to format a post. Bandwidth is not relevant.

That is why posts should be trimmed of the parts no longer being actively discussed. There usually should NOT be any large amount of scrolling to get to the meat of the discussion. Check any of my posts, for examples.

dizzy, the world is rife with followers like yourself, who do what they are told and who are afraid to try something new. You needn't be afraid of change dizzy. Change is good and is most often for the better. Your words are fraught with anger dizzy. Let go of the past. Stop following dizzy. Be a leader. You can do it. Be an agent of change, not someone stuck in the past "because that's the way we've always done it". If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem dizzy. Be strong little dizzy.

And it seems that you are just another moron troll. dizzy, that last comment of yours could almost be a compliment if it had been said by someone with an IQ bigger than his shoe size. dizzy, rise past your low IQ and join society. It can't be fun always breathing through your mouth.

Dizzy, if it weren't for your vileness, I might actually pity you.

Thanks. I never had problems with binaries before and I don't do much with them anymore anyway. My ISP out sourced their news server and now there are some throttles on transfer rates etc. All still works, just makes getting anything of any size not worth it.

Top posting is SUPERIOR. Bandwidth IS relevant, and so is the idiocy of not trimming quotes.

I have a simple questions for you and other bottom post supporters.

1. Do you agree that reading quoted material is not always needled as it might have just been recently read in its original post?
2. Do you agree that bottom posting will force a reader to scroll past the quoted EACH and EVERY time in order to just be able to read the new material? Barring of course situations where all is visible one screen.
3. Do you agree that IF, the reader does not find it necessary to re-read the quoted material, then having to navigate past it in a bottom posting environment is wasteful?
4. In a top posting environment, If the reader DOES find it necessary to reference the quoted material, do you agree that the effort to do so is similar to the efforts described in #3 above?
5. Since most posts do not fit in a single viewing pane, isn't it obvious that bottom posting will require the reader to scroll on almost every message, whereas top postings only require it when context is not already understood?
6. Is not a system which requires less effort to achieve the goal the more efficient system?

dizzy wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

okay, 15yearold high school troll.

you've been plonked. I'm not wasting any more time on your drivel.

I agree with DIZZY as well. I think everyone should bottom post

mike hunt

Only idiots think that.

No, it is not, in regards to the the best way to format a post.

Not trimming can be bad, too.

Your use of "not always needed" shows the dishonesty and illogic of your argument.

Of course it's "not always needed". But it IS almost always better.

"Interleaved" posting, like this, is the correct way.

A properly-trimmed post will not have you "scrolling" to get to the new material.

Why do you keep saying "bottom posting", as if the alternative to posting everything on top is posting everything on the bottom?

In any case, no. Keeping some context is a GOOD THING, so can hardly be called "wasteful".

What's "wasteful" is how top posters almost NEVER trim their posts.

Not even close. A properly formatted post, like this one, is of vastly higher-quality, and is more easily understood, compared to successive blocks of text as are left by stupid top-posters.

Are you mentally retarded? This has already been explained (see the very last paragraph of this post).

Making it a REAL pain, jumping down and up to try to comprehend a top post.

The most efficient system is that where the poster properly formats and trims his response to maximize quality of communication. The extra effort by the one person then benefits the MANY who will read the post.

How ironic, coming frm the person too lazy and selfish to properly format his posts.

Wow. Plonked by a stupid top-poster. How will I ever live this down?

I think DIZZY is correct it is not that hard to read all of the other posts, when they are posted often enough but then again if I had posted on the top you would most likely be reading the next message by now

mike hunt

Examples of what DIZZY?

mike hunt

. Check any of my

"Mike Hunter" wrote

Mike I believe you are being deliberately obtuse, since I know you're not really that stupid. Too bad I can't say the same for SgtSillycon.

Dave

I am NOT overweight ;)

mike hunt

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 >

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.

"Mike" is a troll.

Idiot.

Hi Hairy Dave. I'd be glad to go head to head with you in a contest of wits if you think you are so much smarter. If you care to offer some intelligent counter points to my points that's fine. If you want imply I'm stupid then you should try to back it up.