Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 08:50:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Dan Langille <dan@langille.org> To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why top-posting is bad Message-ID: <20040830084903.T41838@xeon.unixathome.org> In-Reply-To: <p06002087bd58d10321a9@[10.0.1.3]> References: <20040819134840.GA3104@online.fr> <20040822015558.GO92256@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20040827114038.GA2453@online.fr> <p06002068bd54de2a1bf6@[10.0.1.3]> <p06002079bd57bed84da1@[10.0.1.3]> <20040830051243.GA976@online.fr> <p0600207fbd589b4c8ace@[10.0.1.3]> <20040830105847.GA2108@online.fr> <p06002082bd58c1847fd6@[10.0.1.3]> <20040830122440.GA2327@online.fr> <p06002087bd58d10321a9@[10.0.1.3]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Brad Knowles wrote: > At 5:54 PM +0530 2004-08-30, Rahul Siddharthan wrote: > > > You're equating top-posting to an undone fly? Excuse me, take a look > > at the real world sometime. It's more like telling your friend at the > > beach that his necktie is knotted unsymmetrically. > > I notice how you conveniently snip the part where I have > dissected your argument and shown it to be fundamentally fallacious, > and now rail on about how you perceive top posting to be a benign > thing. Little new has been introduced in this thread lately. I suggest letting go. -- Dan Langille - http://www.langille.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040830084903.T41838>