Re: Top posting
On Thursday 09 June 2005 11:16 pm, Hubert Chan wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 20:16:46 -0400, Hal Vaughan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > I saw that, figured it was an attempt to be clever in making one's
> > point and decided it was stupid. ...
> Then why did you decide to insult David's writing grammar when there was
> nothing wrong with his grammar if you read his message properly? (Other
> than the missing period after the last sentence.)
I was making a point -- taking his letter as read, and pointing out that none
of us are perfect. If you read all my comments, and did so dispassionately,
without wanting to find offense, you'd see I made it clear there was no
intent to slam him, merely to point out that we are all open to criticism.
If that were not true, you would not be criticizing me, or others. While
there was no actual insult intended, I accept that you clearly feel that the
way I made my point was less than perfect, just as the e-mail I was
responding to was, and just as those who top-post are -- at least according
to the absolutist standards some insist on implying.
> As a writer, you were definitely not making your point clear.
Guess you aren't familiar with the life of a writer. While some claim to have
never had a work rejected ever (I think Ray Bradbury is in that group, but I
don't remember for sure), for most writers, for every piece that does well,
they have many that they tried and aborted or others that just fell flat.
For Star Wars Episodes IV & V we had to put up with I, II, II, & VI. For The
Tempest and Midsummer Night's Dream, we had Coriolanus. Not every thing
every writer writes turns out perfectly.
You don't like it? Fine. There were probably better ways I could make my