<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Charles Mason <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:charlie.mas@gmail.com">charlie.mas@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 5:53 PM, David Brodbeck <<a href="mailto:gull@gull.us">gull@gull.us</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Fri, November 21, 2008 6:31 am, JR henry wrote:<br>
>> *sigh* thats a war I lost a long time ago. why did top posting become<br>
>> evil, why :(<br>
<br>
</div>But since so many people seem to like Top posting it strikes me the<br>
convention is wrong or at least unfounded.<br>
<br>
Perhaps there's a vocal minority of Bottom Posting Pursuits keep us<br>
Top Posters down (and the majority who couldn't care less). Or perhaps<br>
this discussion has gone on far too long. I dread to think the amount<br>
of mail server bandwidth the age old Top Posting debate has consumed<br>
over the years.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>But by definition, as has been pointed out, the top posters engaged in those debates will have consumed more than their share of bandwidth in the process. ;) <br></div></div><br>Jason<br><br>