"Kyle Peterson" wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
:I am sorry but that is just plain stupid.
: About as stupid as replaying to posts at the bottom of the message instead
: of the top.
to rebut your "stupid" comments...
Do you read a book from back to front?
Is the first paragraph of the book at the back and each subsequent paragraph
immediately preceding the prior?
Perhaps the table of contents reads from the bottom up?
How about page numbers?
Is this how you see the alphabet? zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcba
When you get a receipt, for any purchase, does it read up or down?
Do you answer questions before they are asked of you?
There are probably many reasons people top post so this may not be a
complete list...
....because the text cursor is at the top.
....because they got this ridiculous habit from email.
....because they're lazy.
....because they're selfish.
....because they just don't care.
....because they don't realize how difficult it is for someone to follow
along who hasn't read each subsequent post.
....because nobody ever showed them a different way and explained it to them.
....because they're an idiot. (You may fall into this category, among others)
But, I have a better question that I doubt you can answer.
If you feel it is stupid to bottom post vs. top post why would you include
the previous text? This is a newsgroup so the prior text is already posted.
Why repeat it?
It makes sense to repeat it if you bottom post so only the last post in any
thread need be read.
It makes sense to repeat relevant parts when *replying* inline as you would
with any conversation.
It makes no sense to include it when you top post because nobody goes to the
bottom of a message, scrolls up to find the last post, reads down, scrolls
up, reads down, scrolls up, reads down, etc. because that's stupid. Rather
(not Dan) they would then go to the first post and then read each one which
would negate the reason you probably top post.
So, either it's stupid to top post and include the prior text because it's
useless or because you think that's the way a message should read (scroll
down, scroll up, read down, scroll up, read down...).
You're in a newsgroup where each post in a thread is located below the
previous post. How can you then justify your method of posting which
conflicts with the way the newsgroup and your newsreader function, not to
mention the proper way to read/write the English language, left to right and
top to bottom?
Why didn't you respond with:
..pot eht fo daetsni egassem eht fo mottob eht ta stsop ot gniyalper sa
diputs sa tuobA
..diputs nialp tsuj si taht tub yrros ma I
or:
top. the of
instead message the of bottom the at posts to replaying as stupid as About
stupid. plain just is that but sorry am I
It would enforce your argument but yet it would still have the same effect
as you posted. It would be stupid.
Adrienne said, "Please..." be considerate of others and your response was
"that's stupid. Now let me talk about how stupid you post."
While I may not fully agree with Adrienne's comments, I don't think they're
stupid. I do however disagree with yours AND I think they're stupid, but
that's just my opinion.
--
Roland Hall
/* This information is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
without any warranty; without even the implied warranty of merchantability
or fitness for a particular purpose. */
Technet Script Center -
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/
WSH 5.6 Documentation -
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/list/webdev.asp
MSDN Library -
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp 
