On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 10:47:15 -0600, Alric Knebel wrote:
> ReVulse wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 10:01:05 -0600, Alric Knebel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I never really understood the *****ing about top posting. Can anyone
>>>describe to me why it matters? Please present a REASONABLE argument,
>>>one that would explain why a top post is bad in ANY case.
>>
>>
>>
>> A: Because it breaks the logical sequence of a thread
>> Q: Why is top posting bad ?
>
> That doesn't work because the logical sequence in the thread isn't that
> cut and dry. Most of the time people are following the thread and KNOW
> what the last post was about. These one-line responses to short posts
> work just fine for me, whether they're top or bottom.
Ok, Heres another example :
Suppose you have the following discussion in a thread (i've numbered the
sequence of posts) :
1. I've just watched "El Dia De La Bestia" and loved it.
2. It is a great film, but when it comes to foreign films you cant beat
"Versus"
3. Now you're talking, that's a fantastic film.
4. It's ok, but the best Asian film is probably "Wild Zero"
If poster 3 decided to top post, then someone seeing the thread via
Google would see something like this :
>> Now you're talking, that's a fantastic film.
>>>> I've just watched "El Dia De La Bestia" and loved it.
>>> It is a great film, but when it comes to foreign films you cant beat
>>> "Versus"
> It's ok, but the best Asian film is probably "Wild Zero"
Is it clear which of the three films that poster 3 is referring to ?
#Andy#
--
"You realy are one of the most vile disspickal
hateful twisted morons that ive ever seen on
the internet, and ive seen some right bastards,
but your one of hte worst!!!"
-Varizo (uk.people.gothic - 28/11/06)
|
