Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 08:09:53 +0100 From: Alex de Kruijff <freebsd@akruijff.dds.nl> To: Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Al Johnson <aj305523@tampabay.rr.com> Subject: Re: Top posting Message-ID: <20040323070953.GA1519@alex.lan> In-Reply-To: <20040321014349.GJ52612@wantadilla.lemis.com> References: <20040319172130.GB2044@cs025_2k> <20040319174618.GH64130@keyslapper.org> <20040319223506.GA63254@bhunter.net> <20040320195318.GA923@alex.lan> <20040321014349.GJ52612@wantadilla.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 12:13:49PM +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > [Format *not* recovered--see http://www.lemis.com/email/email-format.html] > > RFC 1855 violation. > > On Saturday, 20 March 2004 at 20:53:18 +0100, Alex de Kruijff wrote: > > So far I only see argument agains top-posting. > > Why should the number of arguments count? It's their validity. But I > think you're miscounting, possibly because of your emphasis on keeping > the relevant text away from your reply. Your ride about this volume doesn't count. Its just that when ppl say that top-posting makes more sence (for them) then one migth think they have any number of arugments and maybe they would like to share then. I could have miscounted, yes. -- Alex Articles based on solutions that I use: http://www.kruijff.org/alex/index.php?dir=docs/FreeBSD/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040323070953.GA1519>