Re: top posting

On Dec 11, 2007 2:58 PM, Collin Kidder <adderd(at)kkmfg(dot)com> wrote:
> Geoffrey wrote:
> > Collin Kidder wrote:
> >
> >> I have to suffer through dealing with people like the two of you
> >> quoted above. You can deal with people who'd like to top post.
> >> Anything else is just being a spoiled baby who can't deal with minor
> >> issues. If all the energy spent crying about top posting were used to
> >> fuel cities none of us would be paying for power right now. Sorry to
> >> be so blunt but it really irritates me when people cry like 4 year
> >> olds about top posting. It's not that bad, get over it.
> >
> > If it's not brought to the attention of the masses, then it will
> > simply grow, and it simply is not the way it's done on this list. Get
> > use to it. Now who's doing the 4 year old crying??
> >
> Yes, I'm bitching, crying, or whatever you'd like to call it. But you
> notice, I'm still attempting to follow the proper posting etiquette for
> this list.

No you're not. You're making personally insulting statements when you
could just as easily make your point without them. Following the
format people want for quoting doesn't allow you to be insulting and
rude.

> However, I do not see any actual valid reason that top
> posting cannot ever be acceptable except that some people are way too
> stuck in a mental rut and refuse to allow for anything other than their
> way.

If you can stop insulting me long enough to go back and read the old
messages in this thread, you'll see that I too said it was perfectly
acceptable some times. Things like "Thanks, that solved it!" are fine
top posted, although you really should crop the majority of the
message you're replying to so as not to send a one liner on top of a
35k message.

> I believe that my conforming to the "rule" shows that I am willing to
> cater to the wishes of the overly anal people on this list.

Now if you just stop insulting them.

> That they
> cannot allow any deviation from their narrow mindset shows you that the
> real problem we've been talking about is with them.

Um. no.