Earl Grey

The discussion though has been valuable for me and perhaps others in that we are now more conscious of the need to quote a bit to create an easily assessible context for comments we might make.

Michael PlantBFE7B09E.3CD66% snipped-for-privacy@pipeline.com/9/06

Meant: "No need for context here!" The above is a typo.

Michael

Michael Plant wrote: > Meant: "No need for context here!"

I'm Ron Burgundy?

Ya know, Blair, I started out this little flame war on your side. I agree that Google can be cumbersome. Unfortunetly the below comment "I'm perfectly happy with not making things easier for you" turned the tide. You could have kept me rooting on your side (whether you cared I did or not) by simply being polite. I'm sorry Google groups makes that difficult for you as well. Also "If you need a threaded newsreader, get one." is an interesting one, seeing as I have a threaded newsreader, and I still have no clue to what your original post was in reference to. Marlene

Ignore whatever you want, just don't come crying to me when you turn up ignorant.

--Blair

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Top-posting is not the same as saying things backwards. In fact, most people skip the quoted text entirely and read the most recent text, regardless of lexical order, then refer backwards, so top-posting is the more efficient order for introductory postscripts or loosely connected replies.

And if you consider top-posting annoying, much less the most annoying thing on usenet or email, you're really not getting enough spam.

--Blair