You *like* the foul/fowl language?
---
Hmm...
"grousing", "fowl language", "for the birds"...
I see you missed the "humor" in those avian references and are
referring to foul language which hasn't even been used yet, unless I
missed something.
---
It must be pleasant at your family mealtable, John.
---
Sarcasm, so soon? **** you, Sally! (Now _that's_ an example of
foul language.)
---
In my field and level we regard such indulgences as
clutter. The pursuit of an intellectual consideration requires meaningful
expression and entirely precludes it, very word being of value. Strongly
asserted differences of opinion are very helpful in exploring the truth but
foul language invariably obscures it. And by the way, attempts to arrive at
the truth logically involve opinion-holders declaring that they were wrong
from tem to time (both sides usually (but not always) can't be right). How
often do you see the abusive posters here stating genuinely that after
reading the other side they have concluded that they were wrong?
---
It happens on occasion and, since most of USENET considers top
posting to be abusive or, at the very least, annoying, it makes me
wonder why you haven't admitted to being wrong about it and changed
your practice.
Even Google Groups advises against top posting at:
http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=12348&topic=250
"Summarize what you're following up.
When you click "Reply" under "show options" to follow up an existing
article, Google Groups includes the full article in quotes, with the
cursor at the top of the article. Tempting though it is to just
start typing your message, please STOP and do two things first.
Look at the quoted text and remove parts that are irrelevant.
Then, go to the BOTTOM of the article and start typing there.
Doing this makes it much easier for your readers to get through your
post. They'll have a reminder of the relevant text before your
comment, but won't have to re-read the entire article.
And if your reply appears on a site before the original article
does,
they'll get the gist of what you're talking about."
Just consider this post, for example. What I'm doing is called
"in-line" posting and is basically designed to reply to specific
areas of a post on a line-by-line basis in order to address each
point individually. Note that the replies always _follow_ the area
being commented on, since preceding that area would make no sense
and would cause the reader unnecessary confusion. Since the reply
follows the point being discussed it is a type of bottom posting and
both allow the smooth chronological give-and-take of a thread to be
easily followed.
In conclusion, this is not email; it's USENET, and as such no one
knows when a reader will pick up a post containing subject matter
with which he's not familiar or where, in time, that post was
generated. Having to slog through a chronologically reversed post
to find the beginning of the thread when one is used to the normal
flow of time is annoying, and inconsiderate of the top poster.
Also, for your edification, I've rearranged the thread in this post
in proper chronological order in order that you may see how much
more smoothly it flows.
