I find the whiners complaining about whiners complaining about top
posting to be more obnoxious than whiners complaining about top
posting will ever be.

Liberator Veritatis <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> said:

I find the whiners complaining about top-posting more obnoxious than
top-posting will ever be.

1) First of all if you want quality exchanges, read professional
journals. If they are any indication as to what you really SHOULD do
when responding to someone, then you should always charitably
summarize their argument with embedded quotes rather than merely
leaving chunks of their original post up and responding to it. So,
the whole method of bottom-posting is a crude substitute for the right
way of responding in the first place.

2) Don't be so ***** self-aggrandizing as to act like the content of
news groups are even supposed to be comparable to professional
journals or that everything posted here is for the benefit of lurkers.
Many of the exchanges are really between two people that might catch
someone else's attention from time to time and that, in any case, are
conversing electronically with one another.

3) Don't act like you have some sort of right to demand that I present
my post to you, some lurker who has not been keeping up with the
thread, in some particular way so that you can quickly entertain
yourself with my exchange with someone else. IF you are keeping up
with the thread (for instance, if you are the person I am exchanging
posts with) then you should know what some short top-post is
responding to. And, in any case, if you don't, it isn't because it
was top posted.

With that said, I do think that it is a cheap, efficient way to
respond to a long post with a long point-by-point response to
"bottom-post" or in other words, leave fragments of their post,
inserting your replies. It would be difficult, indeed, to follow if
you did not do something like this or otherwise explain yourself as
you replied. But, even still, I do not owe it to you to make sure
that I make sense to you or to make my posts easy for you to
understand. Something like this cannot be deemed a breach of
etiquette like, say, posting in all caps which is normally used to
indicate emotion in a post. And, going around throwing tantrums over
people making short top-posted responses is just asinine -- in those
cases its not even appropriate to act like you are making a
point-by-point response (to bottom post).

"Calling out top posting" is right up there with pointing out typos
and using net speak. "U r 2 cool 2 no so much about USENET!" Now
grow up!

Jim07D4

In a message sent 'round the world, Liberator Veritatis poured fuel on
the fire with the following:


...

But, even still, I do not owe it to you to make sure
that I make sense to you or to make my posts easy for you to
understand.

...



It's good to see that you stick with your principles.

Regards,

Josef




Egotism is the anesthetic given by a kindly nature to relieve the pain
of being a damned fool.

-- Bellamy Brooks

On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 04:08:37 GMT, Liberator Veritatis
<LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote:

Now
grow up!

On the other hand, getting totally worked up about such a
insignificant issue and constantly devoting posts to it, is very grown
up.

On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 04:08:37 GMT, Liberator Veritatis <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote in
alt.atheism:

I find the whiners complaining about top-posting more obnoxious than
top-posting will ever be.

<etc.>

We can hardly wait to hear how you feel about calling out off-topic thread-founding.

<plink>

One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Liberator Veritatis:

Personally, I don't mind having to look

I find the whiners complaining about top-posting more obnoxious than
top-posting will ever be.

1) First of all if you want quality exchanges, read professional
journals. If they are any indication as to what you really SHOULD do
when responding to someone, then you should always charitably

response to my post. In fact, I see it as a

summarize their argument with embedded quotes rather than merely
leaving chunks of their original post up and responding to it. So,
the whole method of bottom-posting is a crude substitute for the right
way of responding in the first place.

Why is that?

2) Don't be so ***** self-aggrandizing as to act like the content of
news groups are even supposed to be comparable to professional

all over the place for the proper

journals or that everything posted here is for the benefit of lurkers.
Many of the exchanges are really between two people that might catch

to

someone else's attention from time to time and that, in any case, are
conversing electronically with one another.

We

3) Don't act like you have some sort of right to demand that I present
my post to you, some lurker who has not been keeping up with the

challenge. Hey, we're thinkers, right?

thread, in some particular way so that you can quickly entertain
yourself with my exchange with someone else. IF you are keeping up
with the thread (for instance, if you are the person I am exchanging

should

posts with) then you should know what some short top-post is
responding to. And, in any case, if you don't, it isn't because it
was top posted.

have

With that said, I do think that it is a cheap, efficient way to
respond to a long post with a long point-by-point response to
"bottom-post" or in other words, leave fragments of their post,
inserting your replies. It would be difficult, indeed, to follow if
you did not do something like this or otherwise explain yourself as

every now and then.

you replied. But, even still, I do not owe it to you to make sure
that I make sense to you or to make my posts easy for you to
understand. Something like this cannot be deemed a breach of
etiquette like, say, posting in all caps which is normally used to