Jim, I'm on side with the hatred of HTML and I cannot imagine what a spinning, moving, noisy, or needs to be clicked on flash component would do for my photo viewing. But I don't get the stance against top posting. You intimate that the net savvy folks settled the issue in the same way as there is an informed community consensus about HTML. There isn't; it's much more like the old Ann Landers "which way to hang the toilet paper" debate. What confuses me most is the idea that bottom posting is somehow better because it allows you to avoid scrolling through needlessly repeated material. Given that a bottom poster can get there by ctrl- end or something similar, you're every bit as likely to have the redundant stuff to read. At least with top posting, you see the new before deciding to bother scrolling through the old. But this is all coming from one of the last 4 people alive who know how to type '<SNIP>' ;-) Best, Brian van den Broek On 3 Nov 2003 at 10:28, Jim Davis Nature Photography wrote: > Mike King <mikeking@cableone.net> wrote/replied to: <SNIP> > >B. Top posting is a CHOICE and saves time--one needed read everything > >that's been posted before in a long thread. > > <SNIP> > As to your top posting, I wouldn't mind if you snipped off un needed > bottom crap but you obviously don't do so. And that' why top posting > really sucks, because it's so easy to not scroll down and leave tons > of garbage in each message. > > We've been through all this before many times, it's well documented on > the net. Yet people continue to do this believing top posting is just > fine. > > I submit that top posting is simply a lazy stupid way of posting that > causes nothing but trouble. If you don't see that, then that's a > shame. It doesn't make you look good to defend it either... -- Brian van den Broek brian.van_den_broek@mail.mcgill.ca
