"Terry Pulliam Burd" > wrote in message
...
>> 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.
>
> <clap! clap! clap!>

Oh, Jayzus H. Christ on a pogo stick....

OF COURSE "netiquette" says that; no one is disagreeing with that.
In ANY form of written communications, it should be the aim of the
writer to produce output in such a way that it is most readable by
the most number of people - at least, assuming that actually
communicating information was in fact their aim in the first place.
The supposed "rules of netiquette" all derive from that simple goal,
and I for one am certainly no disagreeing with them.

My problem, instead, is just with those who get so wrapped around
the axle regarding these "rules" that we can only conclude that
they consider them matters of life and death. It is to those people
that I am saying: chill out, folks- there are most definitely more important
things in life to worry about, and for that matter there is almost always
a more pleasant and courteous way for you to state your objections
to these minor faux pas. In other words, if this is how you deal with
what you consider to be objectionable formatting of a written
statement, I would really, truly hate to be around you when something
important goes wrong. For one thing, I don't like getting blood
spatter on my clothes...

Bob M.

>
> Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd's "me, too" post
> AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA
>
>
> "If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
> old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
> waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."
>
> -- Duncan Hines
>
> To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"