just an observation here, but are we not getting close to breaking another
rule?

"Do not high-jack threads, by bringing up entirely new topics. Please create
an entirely new thread copying anything you wish to quote into the new
thread."

I know some feel this is important but if i was searching for some help with
a simple login form and cookies,  this thread would be useless.

peace,

-Shane

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Bob McConnell <r...@cbord.com> wrote:

> From: Tony Marston
>
> > I do not follows rules which cannot be justified beyond the expression
> "It
> > is there, so obey it!" Why is it there? What are the alternatives?
> What harm
> > does it do? What happens if the rule is disobeyed? Top posting existed
> in
> > the early days of the internet, and for a logical reason. Then some
> arrogant
> > prat came along and said "I don't like this, so I am going to make a
> rule
> > which forbids it!". I don't like this rule, so I choose to disobey it.
>
> Daniel already explained to you why it is there. Long threads get too
> confusing with top posting. When posted correctly they read
> chronologically from top to bottom so they can be followed and
> understood when referenced a year or two later.
>
> Top posting did not exist in the early days of the Internet. I was
> active on email listserves and Usenet newsgroups 18 years ago, long
> before Microsoft discovered them and decided that top posting should be
> the norm. All of the other news and email clients I have ever used
> defaulted to bottom posting. It was only in Outlook 2003 that Microsoft
> finally removed that option completely. Previous versions allowed bottom
> posting and even handled the attribution markup correctly.
>
> Bob McConnell
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

Reply via email to