On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:52:48 +0200, Arne > wrote:

>Once upon a time *Andy Turner* wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:52:35 +0200, Arne > wrote:
>>
>>>Once upon a time *Andy Turner* wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10 Apr 2005 10:31:25 -0700, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Riding a motorbike (the mere act of riding) has never been considered
>>>>>rude behavior.
>>>>
>>>> *Exactly*. We all accept other people's choices WRT cars and bikes
>>>> even if it's not the choice we would make. Now then, why can't you
>>>> accept other people's choices elsewhere?
>>>>
>>>
>>>If you prefer to ride a bike or even walk does'nt disturb me, as long
>>>as you keep your self walking on the side walk or bike on the right
>>>side of the road (especially if me meet eatch other).
>>>
>>>But I would not accept if you lived next door to me and choose to have
>>>great partys every night, with loud music and drunk yelling guests.
>>
>> You make the same mistake as "E.P.", in that your analogy doesn't
>> apply because there isn't a group out there that welcome and actually
>> prefer people to be having loud parties with drunk yelling guests next
>> door.
>
>So what you mean, is that if some of your other neighbours should not
> mind your loud parties with drunk yelling guests (maybe even be one),

Not "not mind", but actually *prefer* that there be a loud party going
on next door with drunken guests, than there not be - at any given
point.

Now then, do you know of large groups of people like that?

This is why the analogy fails. You simply have to find something which
large groups of people *prefer*, but which you find objectionable. And
whenever you do that, you're going to hit the same brick wall - that
just because *you* don't like it, doesn't make their preference or
choice wrong and you have no right to try and insist that they adopt
your choice instead.

Of course, like I said to our friend, one has to wonder why in order
to make your point, you resort to analogies that distort the
situation. If your complaint were so valid, then it would be valid by
talking about top-posting, not having to talk about drunken parties.



>that would be ok to have the partys even if all others would mind.
>Just because not everybody oppose to it and maybe even like it?

Nope, because top-posters prefer top-posting *all of the time*. So the
comparative group you are looking for are those that prefer there to
be a loud party on next door than there not be, at any given time.




>>>If you like to do a test, start a thread with somebody who
>>>bottom post every other time when you top post between, without
>>>cutting anything. Make 10 posts eatch and look at how stupid it looks,
>>>with all your posts at the first half of the last post.
>>
>> I'm sure it'll look bizarre - but whose fault would it be? What you're
>> effectively saying is that one should follow the posting trend set by
>> the first respondent. Would you do that if the first respondent
>> top-posted?
>>
>
>You should do as the custom is on the group you are posting on, bottom
>post where it's ask for and top post in groups where that's the custom
>to do so.

Ah, you seem to have avoided the question. Here it is again: Would you
continue to top-post in a top-posted thread to avoid the confusion
that your above text shows that you appreciate would occur if you were
to not top-post?

And to answer what you *did* write, would you top-post in a group that
is primarily top-posted? IME in the commercial workplace, multi-party
email threads are almost always top posted, where the newest
respondent puts their reply at the top of the stack. I trust you would
follow suit there then?


> You seam to do so for at least the thread you post in, like
> in this. So what's the problem to do it every time?

I *do* do it every time since that is my preferred style. However, I
appreciate that other people have different experiences and will
choose different styles. It'd be ludicrous for me to think that
everyone will make the same choices as me and I wouldn't expect them
to, nor try and insist that they do.



>I don't think you mind bottom posting

*Of course* I don't mind bottom posting, I don't mind interleaved
posting and I don't mind top posting. I mean, come on, they're only
style preferences after all... It ain't rocket science!


> you just want to argue and you
> reach that by objecting to anything that can cause an argue.

Sorry, but no. I didn't even start this, the top post whining started
this. I just figured I'd point out the rank hypocrisy, selfishness and
blinkered outlook that top-post whiners generally have.


Oh and incidentally, look at how interleaved posting in this thread
has left the attributions at the top of this post in a complete mess.
It says "On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:52:48 +0200, Arne wrote", and yet what
you *actually* wrote on that day doesn't appear until *30* lines lower
down (perhaps off the screen for some people), after various things
that I said, that you said previously, and that "E.P." wrote also.
Top-posting eliminates this problem.


andyt