"Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality" <ihatespam / rogers.com> wrote 
in message news:UX7Kg.482754$Em2.152566 / fe10.news.easynews.com...
>
> "William Crawford" <wccrawford / gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:6b2da189b37cc7e8680b369e4462ec57 / ruby-forum.com...
>> Just Another Victim of the -spamfilter-t Morality wrote:
>>>
>>>     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...

    Okay, now that I was forced to re-read my posts (in order to correct 
the misquoted post), I now see that this is unfair.  You were only speaking 
for yourself when you said what I had quoted.

    My point is that just because _you_ don't find top posting confusing 
doesn't mean it's a good idea to top post.  Since you are trying to 
communicate with us and we (at least, I) find top-posting confusing, it 
would be better if you were to refrain from it.  You're trying to get your 
point across to us, right?