Christopher Jahn wrote:
>
> And it came to pass that Ian Davey wrote:
>
> >>All you have to do is choose to set for one or the other.
> >>Top posting is just more logical. The thread flows better.
> >
> >Then why is bottom posting the usenet convention rather than
> >top posting? Top posting may make sense in a one to one email
> >conversation, but in usrnet once a thread references several
> >participants it gets very difficult to follow what's going on
> >if one of them is top posting.
> >
>
> IT's really no use arguing - Phil isn't listening, and nothing
> productive will come over arguing opinions. You can't prove
> chocolate is better than vanilla, and that's really all Phil has
> to argue with; his opinion.
>
> Let's all agree to disagree, and get on with life.
>
> --
> }:-) Christopher Jahn
> {:-( Dionysian Reveler
>
> My powers are beyond your understanding!
>
> To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
I listen. And as the saying goes. When in Rome do as the Romans do.
But still in my Heart of Hearts I like top posting.
I post in group that top post and groups that bottom post. I find it a
chore and often difficult to follow the flow of threads bottom posted
especially when i have to go several days without being on the internet
and having to delete post because there are too many to read in a day.
Then its difficult to get up to speed. Having top posted replies means
you read the latest post (even if you've had to delete some interim
post), and can still follow the thread. But this is my opinion.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:540-632-5045, FAX:540-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112-1809|[EMAIL PROTECTED], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
