sf wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:28:39 -0700, Blinky the Shark
> > wrote:
>
> > sf wrote:
> >
> > > > > > sf wrote:
> >>>>>> I'm not justifying anything. Bottom posting sucks because
> >>>>>> attributions don't stay with the message body.
> > > > > >
> >>>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:02:27 -0700, Blinky the Shark
> >>>> > wrote:
> > > > > > The do unless someone or someone's software ****s them up.
> > > > > > Can't blame inter- or bottom-posting for that.
> >>>>
> > > > sf wrote:
> >>>> OK, show me one example here in rfc, including anything from you,
> >>>> where the identification stays with the text in a multi quote
> post. >>>> At least with consistent top posting that can happen.
> Bottom posting >>>> sucks.
> > > >
> >> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:47:57 -0700, Blinky the Shark
> >> > wrote:
> > > > First, define what you mean by "the identification stays with
> > > > the text", so I don't bother meeting your challenge only to
> > > > find out that I *misunderstood* your challenge.
> >>
> >> Show me something that looks like the above. It happens naturally
> (in >> reverse order, which I prefer also) by top posting.
> >
> > Okay, I see what you mean. But in your example, of course, there's
> > a missing attribution - to my last post - at the top, where
> > attribution belongs, so the chain up there is broken.
> >
> > No, that's not going to happen with inter- or bottom-posting. I do
> > see some people manually adding stuff like
> >
> > Blinky said:
> >
> > to each block when they bottom-post. What a waste of time.
>
> In that case, bottom posting doesn't work. Top posting is the best
> option.

Bullshit and lies.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)