On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 15:06:54 +0100, "Polymath"
Gave us:

Indeed, the "governing" RFC even went so far as to
state that bottom posting was the preferred method
of the author but that there was no hard and fast rule
about it.

With top posting, you can quickly "thumb" through the
posts with your hand on the "Next" button. With bottom
posting you have to page down through much already-seen
and over-quoted material. The net result is that bottom-posted
articles tend to get skipped without the new material being read
let alone being visible.

If you are skipping posts in threads which you were at one time
reading, you have some serious skills problems that go far beyond your
simplistic laziness to use more than one clic per post. You have the
mentality of a high school drop-out.

In view of the Childish Broadcast (CB) quoted below,
would it be fair to assume that "NunYa Bidness" is some
kind of infantile CBer handle?

"NunYa Bidness" wrote in message
...
..

If you are skipping posts in threads which you were at one time
reading, you have some serious skills problems that go far beyond your
simplistic laziness to use more than one clic per post. You have the
mentality of a high school drop-out.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:22:32 GMT, NunYa Bidness
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 15:06:54 +0100, "Polymath"
Gave us:

Indeed, the "governing" RFC even went so far as to
state that bottom posting was the preferred method
of the author but that there was no hard and fast rule
about it.

With top posting, you can quickly "thumb" through the
posts with your hand on the "Next" button. With bottom
posting you have to page down through much already-seen
and over-quoted material. The net result is that bottom-posted
articles tend to get skipped without the new material being read
let alone being visible.

If you are skipping posts in threads which you were at one time
reading, you have some serious skills problems that go far beyond your
simplistic laziness to use more than one clic per post. You have the
mentality of a high school drop-out.

What a bunch of psychobabble. Keep your soft science (at best)
off of a technical forum.

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 04:33:54 GMT, Gave us:


What a bunch of psychobabble. Keep your soft science (at best)
off of a technical forum.

Do you like attempting (and failing) at telling others what to do?
Screw you, boy.

Like I said, if you claim to be so technical conform to the
protocol, don't bitch about how you like to be lazy and call it a
matter of convenience.

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 09:57:15 GMT, NunYa Bidness
wrote:

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 04:33:54 GMT, Gave us:


What a bunch of psychobabble. Keep your soft science (at best)
off of a technical forum.

Do you like attempting (and failing) at telling others what to do?
Screw you, boy.

Like I said, if you claim to be so technical conform to the
protocol, don't bitch about how you like to be lazy and call it a
matter of convenience.

Bite me, jerkoff.