Dave Bugg wrote:
> Dana Myers wrote:
>
>
>>Heavens. Top-posting is often more readable
>>and often less readable. Judge posts on the
>>content and not the format.
>
>
> Nope. The post needs to be readable. The norm in communication is to
> reply --- whether talking or writing -- AFTER a statement or question is
> made, not before the person has spoken.

Are you disagreeing that we ought to judge posts
on the content? I don't think so, 'cause you say "the
post needs to be readable".

There are certainly cases where a person may make a statement
or comment and *then* include some text as a kind of footnote.
If it's readable, then it's OK with me.


>>If all ya got to say is "stop top posting",
>>I say "save the time and bandwidth and don't
>>anything at all". Ignore top-posters if
>>you're so sensitive it bothers you. Really.
>>It's bottom-feeding for nit-pickers.
>
>
> Ah, the standard "accept my rude behavior" reply.

No, actually, not. I don't top-post myself in
general. I'm saying, let's just accept people
on the basis of the quality of their communication
and not on the specific format.

> Sorry, but there are norms
> in communication and bottom-posting, accompanied by proper snippage, is what
> has been accepted as the norm in communication on this NG for years. Every
> so often, someone new -- like yourself -- will post the kind of response
> you've posted, and then we have to address this all over again.

I'm no newbie to Usenet, and you don't need to address
the topic all over again. It's just normally such a
zero value topic when it turns into semantic twaddling
and it's just bottom-feeding for nit-picking. It's
like watching the fire too closely :-)

Enough from me on the topic, 'cause I've spent
enough time developing this point of view that
I'm not apt to casually change it. Let's
agree to disagree, I'll keep my comments on the
topic to myself and stipulate that you've won
the debate (because it's below the threshold
of worrying about).

Let's talk Q.

Dana