Personally,

I think it's alot easier to read the threads with top posting. You read
the latest post, in a series of posts that (one would assume) you have
been following with some interest. If something is stated that doesn't
jibe with what you have previously read, you just page down, and read
the stuff previously posted, otherwise, you get the option of skipping
it without paging down and reading through thousands of words in order
to get to the beginning of the posters point..

People who come unglued because you don't follow their predilections,
should remember one thing: the art of discussion is reasonable,
intelligent, well thought out discourse. Where you put that information
is fairly irrelevant.

Tom Klem


Angelo DePalma wrote:
Sorry this post is not about Larry Parr's toenails, Sam Sloan's inability to
beat an 1800 player with the Damiano, or Bill Goichberg's single-handed
destruction of the American way of life.

It's about something of far greater importance -- my integrity as a usenet
poster.

I've recently been fileted and flambayed (forgive the intentional
misspelling) on a bridge newsgroup for "top-posting." I've never read
anything about that subject here. In fact I didn't even know what they were
talking about.

I was called "too stupid to be edsucated (sic) and too rude to consider
other people."

What do you guys think of top-posting, which I admit I do all the time. Is
it really rude, merely poor form, or just the favorite obsession of an
anal-retentive bridge player whose favorite vacation activity is helping his
sister remove mildew from the underside of her kitchen table? Am I wrong to
assume everyone who reads my posts only needs to see relevant stuff that's
gone before?

Am I a rude, stupid, unedsucated SOB or what?

Angelo DePalma