On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 12:19:03 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 01:35:45 -0600, "M.S." wrote
in ::


What amazes me is how bent out of shape some people get over top-posting.
It's a matter of preference, what you like vs. what I like.

You've obviously never attempted to use Google Advanced Group Search
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en to follow a
message thread that has taken place over a period of weeks. If you
feel your contributions are worth archiving, why not make the
researcher's job easier by placing your followup articles in
chronological order with the newest at the bottom?

I'm not sure how google orders their information, but on many servers
it's pure accident if the posts fall in order. It's not at all
uncommon to see two or three answers before the original shows up.
A search based on order should do it's own ordering by date/time. If
it doesn't, it's broken.

Threads often do not follow in order which can be very confusing when
answers are posted with no quoting.



Of course, if you're articles don't contain INFORMATION of any
consequence, you're probably not concerned about how they are
archived.

You just eliminated over 99% of the posts in the archives.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com