"Andy Turner" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 18:07:06 GMT, Mary Pegg
> > wrote:
>
> >Andy Turner wrote:
> >
> ><stuff>
> >
> >I'm bailing.
>
> Perhaps I'd like to think that you learned something about top-posting
> tolerance today, but rarely do the top-post whiners see outside of
> their blinkers.
>
> You're not on your own though Mary, it seems that most
> top-post-whiners are afflicted with the same blinkered outlook that
> leads them to believe that their preferences must be the only one and
> that they're somehow at liberty to tell other people off for not
> adhering to *their* preferences. The penny never seems to drop as to
> why so many people regularly use top-posting and resist change. I
> mean, would *you* change to top-posting if you joined a group where
> most people did?
>
>
> andyt
>

What's most interesting to me here Andy, is that you're arguing a point so
strongly (the right for people to top-post if they wish), when you choose to
bottom-post. Also interesting is that the top-posting offender that sparked
this debate, really doesn't care whether her posts annoy others, and doesn't
appear to have sought to understand the background behind this thorny issue.

It's true that some groups are more tolerant to top-posting than others, but
I believe that if asked not to top-post (especially when cross-posting),
that the request be honoured. For everyone's benefit, there is an excellent
explanation of the history of top-posting and bottom-posting he

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting