On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 14:06:11 +0100 "Constantine A. Murenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 19/10/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There is a legitimate use for top posting. > > Deletion and/or answer of message in 10 to 15 seconds or less. > > Nonsense. Just because your MS Outlook does not support or is not > configured to support bottom-posting, doesn't mean that you should > find some invalid excuses for top-posting. With a sig like mine I coudln't resist a resounding "me too" on this one;-) My sig concisely demonstrates in a nutshell why top posting is problematic, if not an all out pita. <rant> Before johnny-come-lately M$ decided to jump on the interenet bandwagon w/ their lame software top posting was completely unheard of. I've been using Unix since '81 so I think I can say this w/some certainty. Top posting is just a lame excuse offered by lame software developers who wrote a lame mua w/o bothering to read any rfc's, research conventions, etc. prior to doing so. A point obvious to those who cut their teeth on *nix rather than M$. </rant> -- Best regards, Ken Gunderson Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. A: Why is putting a reply at the top of the message frowned upon?
