need to quote a bit to create an easily
assessible context for comments we
might make.

Which I do, where I find it necessary. When I don't, it likely wasn't.
Anyone wishing to determine what they can't contextualize is, again,
invited to use the "up one level" method on their newsreader rather
than writing a long and pointless post about nonexistent protocols.
In terms of economics, ****ing at me and starting this argument
was a hell of a lot more expensive than doing that.

--Blair
"I know which side my teacup is yak-buttered on."

P.S. Oh, and the "girls" crack was purely pejorative. My
apologies to any actual girls involved.

Ignore whatever you want, just don't come crying to me when you turn up
ignorant.

--Blair

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

irae wrote:
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Top-posting is not the same as saying things backwards. In fact, most
people skip the quoted text entirely and read the most recent text,
regardless of lexical order, then refer backwards, so top-posting is
the more efficient order for introductory postscripts or loosely
connected replies.

And if you consider top-posting annoying, much less the most annoying
thing on usenet or email, you're really not getting enough spam.

--Blair