"William Crawford" <wccrawford / gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:6b2da189b37cc7e8680b369e4462ec57 / ruby-forum.com...
> 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.

    Yes, I did misquote you...  I think this is a clear indication of how 
hard it is for me to make a top posted post...


>>> 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?

    Well, if you can't speak for others, why would you say things like "I 
think we're all guilty of ego-centrism here."  You are clearly speaking for 
others when you say that they are, too...


>>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.

    Oh, did you respond to the first post you recieved?
    The three messages may have had the same content (aside from the one 
with editing errors) but they had entirely different presentations.  Which 
one did you prefer?  I'd be surprised if it weren't the bottom-posted 
one...

    In fact, because I'm stubborn, I'm going to post the misquoted post 
again, with proper quotes, since you were so hung up on that point.  Then, 
perhaps, my point will be clear to you...


> 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.

    I think what you mean to say is that there exists messages for which 
top posting would not be confusing.  I think it's fair to say that most 
posts have multiple points and, if you are going to be referring to those 
points, it's simply less confusing to bottom-post than it is to top-post.


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

    I don't like your use of "right" and "wrong" here.  I think a better 
characterization is whether it's polite or impolite.  Top-posting on usenet 
is impolite.  It goes against ettiquette...