just an observation here, but are we not getting close to breaking another rule? "Do not high-jack threads, by bringing up entirely new topics. Please create an entirely new thread copying anything you wish to quote into the new thread." I know some feel this is important but if i was searching for some help with a simple login form and cookies, this thread would be useless. peace, -Shane On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Bob McConnell <rvm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Tony Marston > > > I do not follows rules which cannot be justified beyond the expression > "It > > is there, so obey it!" Why is it there? What are the alternatives? > What harm > > does it do? What happens if the rule is disobeyed? Top posting existed > in > > the early days of the internet, and for a logical reason. Then some > arrogant > > prat came along and said "I don't like this, so I am going to make a > rule > > which forbids it!". I don't like this rule, so I choose to disobey it. > > Daniel already explained to you why it is there. Long threads get too > confusing with top posting. When posted correctly they read > chronologically from top to bottom so they can be followed and > understood when referenced a year or two later. > > Top posting did not exist in the early days of the Internet. I was > active on email listserves and Usenet newsgroups 18 years ago, long > before Microsoft discovered them and decided that top posting should be > the norm. All of the other news and email clients I have ever used > defaulted to bottom posting. It was only in Outlook 2003 that Microsoft > finally removed that option completely. Previous versions allowed bottom > posting and even handled the attribution markup correctly. > > Bob McConnell > > -- > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
