🚀 go-pugleaf

Sound like a great idea. Watercooling is comming on in modern computer. It's
the easyiest way to cool a pc at a reasonable temperature.

I look forward to yout idea. When it's available it will be very usefull.

Greetz

First you should learn about cross-posting and why that is a bad idea; it is
especially bad to cross-post to six groups (one of the worst effects of
cross-posting is the much longer decay time of opjectional posts and troll
threads (c.f. in this newsgroup the 'Happy birthday America" troll.)

THEN you should count the number of messages concerning watercooling in each
overclocking newsgroup.  Then you should calculate the number of
water-cooling posts per day for all the overclocking groups and for each
overclocking group.  If you check the alt.comp.hardware.overclocking group
you will find, over the last ten days exactly ONE thread on water-cooling
(if you don't count your post and replies) containing nine posts.  At that
volume a separate newsgroup is not justified.  It is better to keep
discussion of water cooling consildated in a more active general over
clocking newsgroup.

Newsgroup servers may not carry a new alt* hierachy newsgroup - and if it is
a low volume group ISP's may not add it even if requested.

Try http://tgos.org/newbie/newgroup.html for more information on
establishing an alt. newsgroup.

Phil Weldon, pweldon@mindspring.com



"Thomas Andersson" <steiner@tifozi.net> wrote in message
news:bf7rbn$berqp$1@ID-140641.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Hi!
>
> Anothe discussion lead me to think that maybe it's time to create a new
> newsgroup for discussing watercooling issues. I'm now checking to see if
> there's a genuine interest in this before I enter the process of creating
> it.
> It will be a alt. based group, but I'm not 100% certain of the exact
> hierachy yet, this is why I'm looking to you for suggestions.
>
> I'm thinking:
>
> alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.watercooling
> alt.comp.hardware.watercooling
>
> I think the first obe is the better choise.
>
> Please mail me your 'vote' or alternative suggestion to
newsgroup@tifozi.net
> and add any other suggestions and/or comments you might have on the issue.
>
> Best Wishes
> Thomas
>
>
>

The posting volume would be low, I don't see the point.  There are good
watercooling forums at the major overclocking websites already.  Like
overclockers.com

rms

Phil Weldon wrote:
> First you should learn about cross-posting and why that is a bad idea; it is
[...[

Learn to bottom-post before you flame like that.

-- 
Michal Rosa
This message was written entirely with 100% recycled electrons.
Now playing: Eric Clapton - Train Kept A Rollin'

First, my post was in no way a flame.  Second, for a technical newsgroup top
posting is much more efficient - you can go directly to the NEW information
without scrolling through the prior posts.  This is especially helpful
because in many cases the prior post will be relatively lengthy while the
reply will be relatively short.

A flame usually has clear characteristics, one of which is making false
unwarranted accusations.

Phil Weldon, pweldon@mindspring.com

"Michal Rosa" <mmrosaREMOVE@bigpond.UPPERnetCASE.au> wrote in message
news:3F194136.1080007@bigpond.UPPERnetCASE.au...
> Phil Weldon wrote:
> > First you should learn about cross-posting and why that is a bad idea;
it is
> [...[
>
> Learn to bottom-post before you flame like that.
>
> -- 
> Michal Rosa
> This message was written entirely with 100% recycled electrons.
> Now playing: Eric Clapton - Train Kept A Rollin'
>

"Phil Weldon" <pweldon@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bfbjqf$rc$1@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> Second, for a technical newsgroup top posting is much more efficient -
> you can go directly to the NEW information without scrolling through
> the prior posts.  This is especially helpful because in many cases
> the prior post will be relatively lengthy while the reply will be
> relatively short.

Only if the poster is too lazy to chop away the irrelevant parts.  This kind
of laziness usually manifests in top posters, who quote EVERYTHING
(including signatures and blank lines at the bottom).

If you only want to post the new stuff, then DON'T QUOTE AT ALL -- chop off
that bottom quote in a top post that only serves the purpose of eating up
disk space, bandwidth and reduce retention -- after all, if you want the
full text of the previous post, you simply go to the previous post.  It's
listed in the header of the reply post, and most newsreader will give you
easy access to it.

No regards,
-- 
*Art

"Phil Weldon" <pweldon@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bfbjqf$rc$1@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> First, my post was in no way a flame.  Second, for a technical newsgroup
top
> posting is much more efficient - you can go directly to the NEW
information
> without scrolling through the prior posts.  This is especially helpful
> because in many cases the prior post will be relatively lengthy while the
> reply will be relatively short.
>

You haven't got a clue what you are talking about.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.501 / Virus Database: 299 - Release Date: 14/07/2003

The Thin Man wrote:
> Watercooling? Watercooling is passe' and the latest wizmo gizmo is
> refigeration cooling. I kid you not.

Refrigeration cooling has been around for quite a while but, nevertheless, I'm 
not sure he intended the group's focus to be 'latest fad' cooling anyway.

Phil,

I couldn't agree more. I've been top posting for what seems forever, & if
someone doesn't like it they can just ignore it or kill-file me. The same
goes for replying cross-posted (in this instance replying to a cross posted
message).

Best regards,

-- 
Herb Winston  AMA 50438
Bonita Springs, FL

"He may look like an idiot,
 and he may sound like an idiot,
 but don't let him fool you.
 He really is an idiot."

 Mark Twain
"Phil Weldon" <pweldon@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bfbjqf$rc$1@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> First, my post was in no way a flame.  Second, for a technical newsgroup
top
> posting is much more efficient - you can go directly to the NEW
information
> without scrolling through the prior posts.  This is especially helpful
> because in many cases the prior post will be relatively lengthy while the
> reply will be relatively short.
>
> A flame usually has clear characteristics, one of which is making false
> unwarranted accusations.
>
> Phil Weldon, pweldon@mindspring.com
>
> "Michal Rosa" <mmrosaREMOVE@bigpond.UPPERnetCASE.au> wrote in message
> news:3F194136.1080007@bigpond.UPPERnetCASE.au...
> > Phil Weldon wrote:
> > > First you should learn about cross-posting and why that is a bad idea;
> it is
> > [...[
> >
> > Learn to bottom-post before you flame like that.
> >
> > -- 
> > Michal Rosa
> > This message was written entirely with 100% recycled electrons.
> > Now playing: Eric Clapton - Train Kept A Rollin'
> >
>
>
>

I am with you guys, posting at the bottom makes no sense to me.  Why
force me to scroll through all the previous posts, the posts I just
read, to get to the new reply?  Get me to the new stuff quickly, so I
like top posters.  I believe netiquette dictates that either top or
bottom posting is O.K. as long as it remains consistent throughout a
thread: if people have been bottom posting you should continue the
convention, if people have been top posting do likewise.

Interesting debate...

Koop


"Herb  Winston" <detectivhsd@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<DiDSa.13636$Mc.990396@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> Phil,
> 
> I couldn't agree more. I've been top posting for what seems forever, & if
> someone doesn't like it they can just ignore it or kill-file me. The same
> goes for replying cross-posted (in this instance replying to a cross posted
> message).
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> -- 
> Herb Winston  AMA 50438
> Bonita Springs, FL
> 
> "He may look like an idiot,
>  and he may sound like an idiot,
>  but don't let him fool you.
>  He really is an idiot."
> 
>  Mark Twain
> "Phil Weldon" <pweldon@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:bfbjqf$rc$1@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> > First, my post was in no way a flame.  Second, for a technical newsgroup
>  top
> > posting is much more efficient - you can go directly to the NEW
>  information
> > without scrolling through the prior posts.  This is especially helpful
> > because in many cases the prior post will be relatively lengthy while the
> > reply will be relatively short.
> >
> > A flame usually has clear characteristics, one of which is making false
> > unwarranted accusations.
> >
> > Phil Weldon, pweldon@mindspring.com
> >
> > "Michal Rosa" <mmrosaREMOVE@bigpond.UPPERnetCASE.au> wrote in message
> > news:3F194136.1080007@bigpond.UPPERnetCASE.au...
> > > Phil Weldon wrote:
> > > > First you should learn about cross-posting and why that is a bad idea;
>  it is
> > > [...[
> > >
> > > Learn to bottom-post before you flame like that.
> > >
> > > -- 
> > > Michal Rosa
> > > This message was written entirely with 100% recycled electrons.
> > > Now playing: Eric Clapton - Train Kept A Rollin'
> > >
> >
> >
> >

Koop wrote:
> I am with you guys, posting at the bottom makes no sense to me.  Why
> force me to scroll through all the previous posts, the posts I just
> read, to get to the new reply?  Get me to the new stuff quickly, so I
> like top posters.  I believe netiquette dictates that either top or
> bottom posting is O.K. as long as it remains consistent throughout a
> thread: if people have been bottom posting you should continue the
> convention, if people have been top posting do likewise.
> 
> Interesting debate...
> 
> Koop

http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post

Additional references --

http://fmf.fwn.rug.nl/~anton/topposting.html -- Anton Smit: "Why is 
Bottom-posting better than Top-posting
http://members.home.net/krobb7/quoting.html -- Ken Robbins - Quoting on Usenet
http://www.alt-html.org/index.html#usenet -- Brucie's alt.html General Information
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/docproject/zen/zen-1.0_6.html -- zen and the art of 
the internet (usenet section)
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html -- Jukka Korpela presents Tobias 
Brox's Bottom vs. top posting and quotation style on Usenet
http://www.estreetjournal.com/cgi-local/dir/dir.cgi/Computers/Internet/Etiquette/ 
-- Netiquette links
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1/ -- "rules" for posting to 
usenet
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting.html -- Richard Kettlewell: 
Quoting Style
http://www.html-faq.com/faq.php?clue=topposting -- alt.html FAQ reference on 
posting methods
http://www.i-hate-computers.demon.co.uk/ -- "How not to look like an idiot", 
What do you mean "my reply is upside-down"?
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html -- Netmeister: "How do I quote 
correctly in Usenet"
http://www.topfloor.com/pr/communities/ch3.htm -- TopFloor Publishing: Online 
communities - Participating effectively
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/g.mccaughan/g/remarks/uquote.html -- G.McCaughan: 
The advantages of Usenet's quoting conventions
http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/quote.html -- FAQ of Proper Quoting
http://www.windfalls.net/ukrm/postinghelp.html -- "Suggestions on how to post"
http://www.xs4all.nl/~wijnands/nnq/nquote.html -- news.newusers.questions FAQ



> 
> "Herb  Winston" <detectivhsd@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<DiDSa.13636$Mc.990396@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> 
>>Phil,
>>
>>I couldn't agree more. I've been top posting for what seems forever, & if
>>someone doesn't like it they can just ignore it or kill-file me. The same
>>goes for replying cross-posted (in this instance replying to a cross posted
>>message).
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>-- 
>>Herb Winston  AMA 50438
>>Bonita Springs, FL
>>
>>"He may look like an idiot,
>> and he may sound like an idiot,
>> but don't let him fool you.
>> He really is an idiot."
>>
>> Mark Twain
>>"Phil Weldon" <pweldon@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>news:bfbjqf$rc$1@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
>>
>>>First, my post was in no way a flame.  Second, for a technical newsgroup
>>
>> top
>>
>>>posting is much more efficient - you can go directly to the NEW
>>
>> information
>>
>>>without scrolling through the prior posts.  This is especially helpful
>>>because in many cases the prior post will be relatively lengthy while the
>>>reply will be relatively short.
>>>
>>>A flame usually has clear characteristics, one of which is making false
>>>unwarranted accusations.
>>>
>>>Phil Weldon, pweldon@mindspring.com
>>>
>>>"Michal Rosa" <mmrosaREMOVE@bigpond.UPPERnetCASE.au> wrote in message
>>>news:3F194136.1080007@bigpond.UPPERnetCASE.au...
>>>
>>>>Phil Weldon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>First you should learn about cross-posting and why that is a bad idea;
>>>>
>> it is
>>
>>>>[...[
>>>>
>>>>Learn to bottom-post before you flame like that.
>>>>
>>>>-- 
>>>>Michal Rosa
>>>>This message was written entirely with 100% recycled electrons.
>>>>Now playing: Eric Clapton - Train Kept A Rollin'
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

Thanks for the nice list of URL's on usenet posting, but top-posting still
seems more in tune with the development of internet use and capability.

Phil Weldon, pweldon.mindspring.com

Phil Weldon wrote:
> Thanks for the nice list of URL's on usenet posting, but top-posting still
> seems more in tune with the development of internet use and capability.
> 
> Phil Weldon, pweldon.mindspring.com
> 
> 

Well, it's 'in tune' with 'developments' in that it coincides with the rapid 
influx of people who are unfamiliar with good posting methodology, as was noted 
in one of the articles.

But I was replying to Koop's comment "netiquette dictates that either top or 
bottom posting is O.K. as long as it remains consistent" and that is not the case.

The "good posting methodology" are stupid rules made by people with big egos
that think everyone should do as them. Bottom posting makes no sense as it
makes everyone spend half their time searching for new data or reading data
they have already read. I always have top posted and always will as that is
the most efficient way........


"David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:3F1E52A6.4030100@ev1.net...
> Phil Weldon wrote:
> > Thanks for the nice list of URL's on usenet posting, but top-posting
still
> > seems more in tune with the development of internet use and capability.
> >
> > Phil Weldon, pweldon.mindspring.com
> >
> >
>
> Well, it's 'in tune' with 'developments' in that it coincides with the
rapid
> influx of people who are unfamiliar with good posting methodology, as was
noted
> in one of the articles.
>
> But I was replying to Koop's comment "netiquette dictates that either top
or
> bottom posting is O.K. as long as it remains consistent" and that is not
the case.
>
>

BillW wrote:
> The "good posting methodology" are stupid rules made by people with
> big egos that think everyone should do as them. Bottom posting makes
> no sense as it makes everyone spend half their time searching for new
> data or reading data they have already read. I always have top posted
> and always will as that is the most efficient way........

OK this is now completely off topic in all crossposted newsgroups.

But I guess that doesn't matter either - it's probably "more efficient" to
discuss whatever, wherever.

:-)

Incidentally if you were to use a proper newsreader or OEQuoteFix, you'd be
able to see that you do not spend time searching for new data or reading old
data as it's all colour coded.  But then you have to know how to post
correctly in order for it to work efficiently.

Ben
-- 
I'm not just a number.  To many, I'm known as a string...

BillW wrote:
> The "good posting methodology" are stupid rules made by people with big egos
> that think everyone should do as them. Bottom posting makes no sense as it
> makes everyone spend half their time searching for new data or reading data
> they have already read. I always have top posted and always will as that is
> the most efficient way........

And I'd bet you've never read word one about the subject.


> 
> "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
> news:3F1E52A6.4030100@ev1.net...
> 
>>Phil Weldon wrote:
>>
>>>Thanks for the nice list of URL's on usenet posting, but top-posting
>>
> still
> 
>>>seems more in tune with the development of internet use and capability.
>>>
>>>Phil Weldon, pweldon.mindspring.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Well, it's 'in tune' with 'developments' in that it coincides with the
> 
> rapid
> 
>>influx of people who are unfamiliar with good posting methodology, as was
> 
> noted
> 
>>in one of the articles.
>>
>>But I was replying to Koop's comment "netiquette dictates that either top
> 
> or
> 
>>bottom posting is O.K. as long as it remains consistent" and that is not
> 
> the case.
> 
>>
> 
> 

David Maynard wrote:
> BillW wrote:
>> The "good posting methodology" are stupid rules made by people with
>> big egos that think everyone should do as them. Bottom posting makes
>> no sense as it makes everyone spend half their time searching for
>> new data or reading data they have already read. I always have top
>> posted and always will as that is the most efficient way........
>
> And I'd bet you've never read word one about the subject.

And you've probably not read two... :-)

Step 1) Reply after the RELEVENT bit.

Step 2) Trim the IRRELEVENT bit.

Thats all you really need to know to post well enough.

Ben
-- 
I'm not just a number.  To many, I'm known as a string...

"Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bg5lnb$la9a3$1@ID-191149.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> Step 1) Reply after the RELEVENT bit.
>
> Step 2) Trim the IRRELEVENT bit.
>
> Thats all you really need to know to post well enough.

Some of us wouldn't mind a third step:

Step 3) Apply a spell checker.

Regards,
-- 
*Art

Arthur Hagen wrote:
> "Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bg5lnb$la9a3$1@ID-191149.news.uni-berlin.de...
>>
>> Step 1) Reply after the RELEVENT bit.
>>
>> Step 2) Trim the IRRELEVENT bit.
>>
>> Thats all you really need to know to post well enough.

I was going to reply to your post, but applied step two.

Seems you had nothing relevAnt to say.

Ben
-- 
I'm not just a number.  To many, I'm known as a string...

Ben Pope wrote:
> David Maynard wrote:
> 
>>BillW wrote:
>>
>>>The "good posting methodology" are stupid rules made by people with
>>>big egos that think everyone should do as them. Bottom posting makes
>>>no sense as it makes everyone spend half their time searching for
>>>new data or reading data they have already read. I always have top
>>>posted and always will as that is the most efficient way........
>>
>>And I'd bet you've never read word one about the subject.
> 
> 
> And you've probably not read two... :-)

Bad bet on your part.

I was hoping to challenge the previous poster to actually read, perchance to 
think, about the logic of it rather than simply knee jerk react with what he's 
'always done'.

> 
> Step 1) Reply after the RELEVENT bit.
> 
> Step 2) Trim the IRRELEVENT bit.
> 
> Thats all you really need to know to post well enough.

Of course, but your description is a version of 'bottom posting' and in line 
with the "good posting methodology" that the previous 'top poster' labeled as 
"stupid rules made by people with big egos."

> 
> Ben

David Maynard wrote:
> Ben Pope wrote:
>
> Of course, but your description is a version of 'bottom posting' and
> in line with the "good posting methodology" that the previous 'top
> poster' labeled as "stupid rules made by people with big egos."

But providing you trim, all of his argument is lost.

The bit about big egos is also incorrect, since it's not about egos, it's
about standards.  If he were to drive on the wrong side of the road, his
argument could hardly be "I think you have a big ego, how dare you dictate
on which side of the road I drive."

RFC 1855 gives the guidelines in paragraph 3.1.1
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html

Since it's an RFC, a large number of people have agreed to the way in which
it's done.

Personally I couldn't care less where the information is, as long as it's
clear what's being said.  However, quite often you see a one-liner crammed
up against the header information from the previous post, with maybe 5 to 6
other posts inconsistently quoted, 95% of which is completely irrelevent.
And thats considered "efficient" by the deficient author.

Ben
-- 
I'm not just a number.  To many, I'm known as a string...

In article <3F264577.6020707@ev1.net>, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
>BillW wrote:
>> The "good posting methodology" are stupid rules made by people with big egos
>> that think everyone should do as them. Bottom posting makes no sense as it
>> makes everyone spend half their time searching for new data or reading data
>> they have already read. I always have top posted and always will as that is
>> the most efficient way........
>
>And I'd bet you've never read word one about the subject.

Question: If proper 'net etiquette' is important, why didn't you trim the
rest of the stuff?

<Stuff that SHOULD have been deleted follows:>


>
>
>> 
>> "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
>> news:3F1E52A6.4030100@ev1.net...
>> 
>>>Phil Weldon wrote:
>>>
>>>>Thanks for the nice list of URL's on usenet posting, but top-posting
>>>
>> still
>> 
>>>>seems more in tune with the development of internet use and capability.
>>>>
>>>>Phil Weldon, pweldon.mindspring.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well, it's 'in tune' with 'developments' in that it coincides with the
>> 
>> rapid
>> 
>>>influx of people who are unfamiliar with good posting methodology, as was
>> 
>> noted
>> 
>>>in one of the articles.
>>>
>>>But I was replying to Koop's comment "netiquette dictates that either top
>> 
>> or
>> 
>>>bottom posting is O.K. as long as it remains consistent" and that is not
>> 
>> the case.
>> 
>>>
>> 
>> 
>
>

Nope. Had to scroll to the bottom and no further (or pertinent) info.

-- 
bpoulton at vcn dot bc dot ca (Bob Poulton) Remove 'yourhat' to reply
An Email as well as a response to the Newsgroup would be appreciated as
sometimes this ISP is kinda flakey.
ALL Spam will be forwarded to Spamcop.

Ben Pope wrote:
> David Maynard wrote:
> 
>>Ben Pope wrote:
>>
>>Of course, but your description is a version of 'bottom posting' and
>>in line with the "good posting methodology" that the previous 'top
>>poster' labeled as "stupid rules made by people with big egos."
> 
> 
> But providing you trim, all of his argument is lost.

You and I have no disagreement.

Your point about the argument being lost is precisely why I was trying to induce 
the previous poster to read the various articles on the subject. They don't just 
simply say 'do it this way'; they provide the reasoning, based on the most 
sensible, for why it's the 'accepted' methodology by those who think about it.

> 
> The bit about big egos is also incorrect, since it's not about egos, it's
> about standards.  If he were to drive on the wrong side of the road, his
> argument could hardly be "I think you have a big ego, how dare you dictate
> on which side of the road I drive."

An argument could be made that which side of the road one drives on poses a 
physical danger to others whereas posting style "doesn't hurt anyone." That, of 
course, is why one is law while the other is a matter of convention and courtesy.

> RFC 1855 gives the guidelines in paragraph 3.1.1
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
> 
> Since it's an RFC, a large number of people have agreed to the way in which
> it's done.
> 
> Personally I couldn't care less where the information is, as long as it's
> clear what's being said.

I agree. That, after all, is the purpose of writing a message, I should think ;)

>  <snip>
> 
> Ben

Bite Me wrote:
> In article <3F264577.6020707@ev1.net>, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
> 
>>BillW wrote:
>>
>>>The "good posting methodology" are stupid rules made by people with big egos
>>>that think everyone should do as them. Bottom posting makes no sense as it
>>>makes everyone spend half their time searching for new data or reading data
>>>they have already read. I always have top posted and always will as that is
>>>the most efficient way........
>>
>>And I'd bet you've never read word one about the subject.
> 
> 
> Question: If proper 'net etiquette' is important, why didn't you trim the
> rest of the stuff?

Because I felt it was relevant for background on what was being discussed; 
which, if you had paid attention, was top vs bottom posting and not snipping 
techniques.

> 
> <Stuff that SHOULD have been deleted follows:>

In your opinion.

> 
> 
>>
>>>"David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
>>>news:3F1E52A6.4030100@ev1.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Phil Weldon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Thanks for the nice list of URL's on usenet posting, but top-posting
>>>>
>>>still
>>>
>>>
>>>>>seems more in tune with the development of internet use and capability.
>>>>>
>>>>>Phil Weldon, pweldon.mindspring.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, it's 'in tune' with 'developments' in that it coincides with the
>>>
>>>rapid
>>>
>>>
>>>>influx of people who are unfamiliar with good posting methodology, as was
>>>
>>>noted
>>>
>>>
>>>>in one of the articles.
>>>>
>>>>But I was replying to Koop's comment "netiquette dictates that either top
>>>
>>>or
>>>
>>>
>>>>bottom posting is O.K. as long as it remains consistent" and that is not
>>>
>>>the case.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> Nope. Had to scroll to the bottom and no further (or pertinent) info.

It's 'pertinence', besides topical, is it shows how top posting gets things 
stuck down here at the end of a message and your 'having' to read 'all the way 
down' demonstrates that the top poster's argument of how top posting prevents 
this very thing is incorrect.

I sure hope it didn't hurt your scroll finger, or strain your brain cells, to 
read the 'whole thing'.