Just Another Victim of the -spamfilter-t Morality wrote:
>> unknown wrote:
>>> William Crawford <wccrawford / gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This is not a "forum", it is Usenet.  There are *many* different
>>> reading environments, some of which are entirely different than
>>> that presented in a "forum".

You managed to misquote me here.  You have completed destroyed the
'context' you so ardently desire.  I did not say that, 'unknown' did.

>> Forum or usenet (or mailing list), first is first.  Any decent usenet
>> reader these days presents threads properly.
> 
> 
>     You are, again, speaking for yourself...

Of course I am.  How am I to speak for others when I am not them?

>Just to make a point, I will post this message again with top 
posting
>schemes and you I'll wait for you to tell me that they were just as easy 
to
>understand.  I don't think you can do so, honestly...

Well, had you not misquoted me (and possibly others, I gave up on your
'context' after a bit) and had you not posted 3 times almost the exact
same message (the second of which, I understand was to prove a point,
but it appears they are out of order (thanks to usenet, I guess?) and
the third, a mis-post... maybe?), you probably would have won that
point.  Instead, you managed to be at least as confusing as a post with
no context, and more confusing than a top-post.

Yes, top-posting with no context in your reply is confusing.  But then,
it's the same as returning someone's phone and answering 'No.' to the
question they left on your answering machine.  Not everyone does will
with the phone communication thing, but it IS possible to top-post
without being confusing.  Just as it is possible to bottom-post and
confuse the heck out of people.

In a setting without clear set rules, neither approach is right or wrong
in itself.

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.