J. McLaughlin wrote:
I can not for the life of me understand why some of you put responses at
the bottom and make one have to scan way down.

Because anything else is a malicious violation of netnews guidelines?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
J. McLaughlin wrote:
I can not for the life of me understand why some of you put responses at
the bottom and make one have to scan way down.

Because anything else is a malicious violation of netnews guidelines?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Part of the task of composing a rational response is the ability to edit the
previous post. A good response shouldn't burden you with excessive
scrolling.

Ed
wb6wsn

Ed Price wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote:

J. McLaughlin wrote:
I can not for the life of me understand why some of you put responses at
the bottom and make one have to scan way down.

Because anything else is a malicious violation of netnews guidelines?

Part of the task of composing a rational response is the ability to edit the
previous post. A good response shouldn't burden you with excessive
scrolling.

My posting was tongue-in-cheek but it did meet your guidelines. :-) However,
don't be surprised if you are accused of deleting the important stuff.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----