On 10 May 2010 09:32, Brewster Gillett <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 10 May 2010 07:23, Thomas Steel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I apologise. I don't know what 'bottom posting' & 'top posting' mean. > If > > > this is a 'top post', perhaps for a 'bottom post' it is possible to > type a > > > reply at the end of all this script. I will try that now. Please let me > know > > > if that doesn't work. TS > > > > > > > <snip> > > Harold Fuchs wrote: > > > "Bottom posting" is placing your text below (at the bottom of) the text > to > > which you are replying. "Top posting" is placing your text above (on top > of) > > the text to which you are replying. There is a religious war about the > > sanctity of the one and the total ungodliness of the other. Please don't > ask > > why. The "third way" is to intersperse your comments within the text, > with > > each comment immediately below the text to which it relates. Some people > > believe this is the Only True Way. It would take skills far beyond those > > ever dreamed of by George Mitchell > > <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8659894.stm>to resolve this issue. > > bg: > > This is hardly rocket science. Posts are more easily and conveniently > absorbed by the reader when they are arranged in their chronological > order, oldest at the top, newest at the bottom. This is irrespective of > whether they consist of multiple interspersions or not. > > Those of us who understand this may be forgiven for speculating > that those who don't belong to some hitherto undiscovered species > of primate :-) > > Brewster > > > See what I mean?
-- Harold Fuchs London, England Please reply *only* to [email protected]
