On Fri, 2005-12-30 at 11:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I also prefer top posting, so therefore it's comforting to hear me > described as one who is "lazy, ill informed or think that their time is > more valuable than that of many others". It is nice to hear, though, > that I'm not the only one on this group who prefers top posting. > > I'm not sure if I can generalize, but it kind of seems like top-posters > are fairly tolerant of bottom-posters, but the opposite seems to be > less the case.
bg: Quite so - and there's a very good reason for it. Top-posters' knowledge base WRT to the politeness traditions of the Net is comparatively smaller. By quite a bit. They mostly fail to understand one of the most basic, and long-standing, elements of Net courtesy - we stop and think whether the way we post is likely to cause extra work for others. The reason for the lower tolerance on the part of those who *do* understand this dynamic is in large part owing to the irrational resentment so often expressed by top-poster, dare I say it, Net-Newbies, when matters of established Net courtesy are brought to their attention. That, and some of us have some heartburn with willful ignorance. Inadvertent ignorance is one thing, but . . . Top-posting is one thing when used in a one-time, one-message one-on-one exchange between two people. Under any other circumstances, and especially as it is so often practiced, with *no* effort to edit out any of the post being responded to, it is the hallmark of the Net-illiterate. Brewster Gillett -- ****************************************************************** W. Brewster Gillett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Portland, OR USA ****************************************************************** --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
