TOP POSTING (was: RE: Best 200 buck I have ever spent!!! Deal of a lifetime!!!

[Alexandre Souza]

weren't all talking about C64s??? ":)

2015-12-10 3:23 GMT-02:00 <dave at 661.org>:

> On Wed, 9 Dec 2015, Mike Stein wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Fred Cisin" <cisin at xenosoft.com>
>> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <
>> cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 10:05 PM
>> Subject: Re: TOP POSTING (was: RE: Best 200 buck I have ever spent!!!
>> Deal of a lifetime!!!
>>
>>
>> "Top posting implies that you are only interested in computers from the
>>>> 1990s or newer."
>>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 9 Dec 2015, drlegendre . wrote:
>>>
>>>> In addition to being a sign of secretly harbored communist sympathies.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I thought that it was the other way around
>>>
>>
>> You mean as in "there's only one way to do something (the Party Line/the
>> way it's always been done), regardless of how most of the rest of the world
>> does it, and anyone deviating from that will be publicly
>> chastised/criticised (unless they seem to rate an exemption for some
>> reason)?"
>>
>> Personally, I find bottom-posting a huge PITA, both sending and
>> receiving, although trimming and inline posting certainly have their place.
>>
>
> Top-posting is like taking a crap in your pants because that's where your
> arse was when you needed to go.
>
>
> --
> David Griffith
> dave at 661.org
>
> A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
>