"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Bob Myers"
> > wrote:
>
>> "axlq" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article > ,
>> > Lucy > wrote:
>> > >I've decided, after a few minutes of thought, to post however I see
>> > >fit.
>> So,
>> >
>> > If your objective in posting is to reach an audience, then it
>> > behooves you to post in a fashion acceptable to the community you're
>> > communicating with. Bottom posting is simply good netiquette.
>> >
>> > If I said, "I've decided, after a few minutes of thought, to belch,
>> > fart loudly, and even masturbate in fancy restaurants whenever
>> > I have the urge," then you get the flavor of your decision with
>> > respect to-top posting in newsgroups.
>>
>> Oh, good Gawd...it's not at all comparable.
>
>
> It's comparable in "flavor", though not degree.
>
>
>> above. I'd much rather read a top-posted post than one which
>> has been bottom-posted by some moron who can't be bothered
>> to trim the hundreds of lines that have been written previously.
>
>
> I've seen this argument too often. Two wrongs don't make a right.
> Netiquette says to bottom post *and* trim your posts.
>
> --
> Dan Abel
> Sonoma State University
> AIS
>
Netiquette also dictates one doesn't resort to calling a fellow poster a
bitch.
lucy
