G
Guest
·Re: (was) Toyota, GM, and Ford differences
"SgtSilicon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "idiot" is not an intelligent counterpoint.
That depends on the veracity of the statement. In this case, I think it was
more of an observation than a counterpoint.
The best argument anyone
> has made for bottom posting so far is that an assumption is made that
> the quoted material will need to be read each and every time, and that
> going below the new material to get to it is too confusing.
I don't remember anyone saying "each and every time", but I think most times
would be accurate.
>
> I and others have shown that those assumptions are not always true,
> and in fact OFTEN aren't.
The only thing that you have shown is that you are too lazy to trim and
quote properly.
Just because someone at Intel wrote a memo
> and it was posted on a university node as a guide, is not a reason to
> start bottom posting.
It has nothing to do with who "wrote a memo", though you seem to be hung up
on that point. Whazza matter, they forget to run it by you, first?
I'm someone who deals in the practicality of it
> and that to me, is that one often (even mostly) doesn't need to
> re-read quoted material, and that on those times it is needed, it is
> NOT too confusing to do so.
Yes, it's all about YOU, isn't it. Whatever is easiest for YOU. To hell with
everyone else. (especially since YOU didn't write the memo)
>
> So if it has come down to an argument of quantifying how often the
> quoted material needs to be read or to extent it is confusing to look
> below the new material to see it if it is needed, then we could argue
> all day. Since I usually have ALREADY read the posts in the thread
> that are being quoted,
them over and over again.
> Also, when I do need to, I don't find it confusing in the least to
> look below for it. I supposed people's mileage may vary depending on
> their memory sharpness and reading comprehension skills.
>
"Since I usually have ALREADY read"
"I RARELY need to read"
"when I do need to, I don't find it"
"I supposed"
See what I mean? It's all about YOU. No consideration for anyone else.
I participate in ten different NG's, and read several others. It's not
obvious who the new posts are replying to, let alone what the context of the
message is, especially in long threads like this one. It is almost always
helpful to have a bit of quoted text before the reply to refresh the memory.
Otherwise I have to scroll down to get the context and in your case, you
often don't trim the quoted material below which makes it even worse.
> Now tell us how smart you are again.
No point in restating the obvious to a deaf person.
Dave
"SgtSilicon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "idiot" is not an intelligent counterpoint.
That depends on the veracity of the statement. In this case, I think it was
more of an observation than a counterpoint.
The best argument anyone
> has made for bottom posting so far is that an assumption is made that
> the quoted material will need to be read each and every time, and that
> going below the new material to get to it is too confusing.
I don't remember anyone saying "each and every time", but I think most times
would be accurate.
>
> I and others have shown that those assumptions are not always true,
> and in fact OFTEN aren't.
The only thing that you have shown is that you are too lazy to trim and
quote properly.
Just because someone at Intel wrote a memo
> and it was posted on a university node as a guide, is not a reason to
> start bottom posting.
It has nothing to do with who "wrote a memo", though you seem to be hung up
on that point. Whazza matter, they forget to run it by you, first?
I'm someone who deals in the practicality of it
> and that to me, is that one often (even mostly) doesn't need to
> re-read quoted material, and that on those times it is needed, it is
> NOT too confusing to do so.
Yes, it's all about YOU, isn't it. Whatever is easiest for YOU. To hell with
everyone else. (especially since YOU didn't write the memo)
>
> So if it has come down to an argument of quantifying how often the
> quoted material needs to be read or to extent it is confusing to look
> below the new material to see it if it is needed, then we could argue
> all day. Since I usually have ALREADY read the posts in the thread
> that are being quoted,
them over and over again.
> Also, when I do need to, I don't find it confusing in the least to
> look below for it. I supposed people's mileage may vary depending on
> their memory sharpness and reading comprehension skills.
>
"Since I usually have ALREADY read"
"I RARELY need to read"
"when I do need to, I don't find it"
"I supposed"
See what I mean? It's all about YOU. No consideration for anyone else.
I participate in ten different NG's, and read several others. It's not
obvious who the new posts are replying to, let alone what the context of the
message is, especially in long threads like this one. It is almost always
helpful to have a bit of quoted text before the reply to refresh the memory.
Otherwise I have to scroll down to get the context and in your case, you
often don't trim the quoted material below which makes it even worse.
> Now tell us how smart you are again.
No point in restating the obvious to a deaf person.
Dave
