1 |
Qian Qiao wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Ok, i top post, just for you, :) |
4 |
> |
5 |
> Imagine someone who wasn't following the thread need to do to pick up |
6 |
> this thread: |
7 |
> 1. Scroll all the way to the bottom, read Ted's message. |
8 |
> 2. Scroll a bit upwards, to read you message |
9 |
> 3. Then scroll all the way to the top, to read mine. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> I can hardly say it is *logical* to read a thread backwards. Another |
12 |
> example: try to name one forum/BBS system that displays the newest |
13 |
> reply on the top when viewing a thread. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> *B*/T/_W_, *how did* you like my HTML <http://www.google.com>? I bet |
16 |
> you enjoyed it. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> You just don't understand that most people dislike top-posting and |
19 |
> HTML messages for a reason. You've got every right to use whatever you |
20 |
> wish in your personal mails, but this is a public list, try to be |
21 |
> considerate mate. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> -- Joe |
24 |
> |
25 |
> On 10/30/05, Dale <dalek@××××××××××.net <mailto:dalek@××××××××××.net>> |
26 |
> wrote: |
27 |
> > I post mine on top so I assume that is top posting. Correct? Now |
28 |
> you will |
29 |
> > see what I mean by mixing the two. LOL |
30 |
> > |
31 |
> > Dale |
32 |
> > |
33 |
> > |
34 |
> > Ted Kaczmarek wrote: |
35 |
> > On Sun, 2005-10-30 at 03:31 -0600, Dale wrote: |
36 |
> |
37 |
> > I agree with your reasons but some of the others have reasons too. I |
38 |
> do like |
39 |
> > my reason better though. LOL I put LOL for those who read |
40 |
> text only and not |
41 |
> > HTML. LOL, again. |
42 |
> |
43 |
> I don't think anybody is getting anal about it. I always |
44 |
> > look at it |
45 |
> this way, if someone doesn't want to help me with something, I |
46 |
> > don't |
47 |
> want their help anyway. I help because I like it not because |
48 |
> > someone |
49 |
> has a gun to my head, or top posts. If someone bottom posts, |
50 |
> > I'll |
51 |
> scroll down and see if I can help. |
52 |
> |
53 |
> I do wish someone would pick a way |
54 |
> > and let it be the only way though. |
55 |
> It gets confusing when some top post and |
56 |
> > some bottom post. That |
57 |
> really wears out my mouse wheel. Go down, read a bit, |
58 |
> > then go up and |
59 |
> read a bit, then back down again, repeat, repeat. That is |
60 |
> > when it |
61 |
> gets confusing. |
62 |
> |
63 |
> Dale |
64 |
> :-) |
65 |
> |
66 |
> > Than why did you top post? |
67 |
> |
68 |
> Ted |
69 |
> |
70 |
> |
71 |
> |
72 |
> > |
73 |
> |
74 |
> |
75 |
> -- |
76 |
> There are 3 kinds of people in the world: |
77 |
> Those who can count, and those who can't. |
78 |
> |
79 |
> Money can't buy everything. |
80 |
> Sometimes money can't even buy a gun... |
81 |
> |
82 |
|
83 |
|
84 |
I did see a forum once that lets you put the posts in reverse order, |
85 |
most recent at the top. I would sort of like that. I'm on a very slow |
86 |
dial-up and I can likely read the new post before the rest of the page |
87 |
can even load up. |
88 |
|
89 |
I'm not a rocket scientist but I can usually remember what's going on in |
90 |
a thread or list like this one. If I don't remember it, then I wasn't |
91 |
following it anyway. |
92 |
|
93 |
How you like this on the bottom? LOL |
94 |
|
95 |
Dale |