"Tesselator" <jimmmboe@hotmail.com> writes:

> Hey, that was kinda rude.  (again)  So I'll make my final reply and be done.
> 
> > RFC1855, as many others have pointed out. Doubtless you won't be able to find
> > it, either, so:
> 
> 
> Like I said, you will NOT be able to unless you write your own and somehow get
> it accepted.   There is nothing... not one thing, that mandates top-posting
> or otherwise suggests that included quoted text is somehow better or worse
> at the top, as opposed to the bottom or middle of a reply one sends.  By
> the way did you happen to notice the very first clause?

I guess you missed my post on the subject that outline precisely why
you can't claim that top-posting practice follows these guidelines.

> Let me quote it for you here:
> 
> 
>         Status of This Memo
>         This memo provides information for the Internet community.
>         This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
>         Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Okay, so you're new to this RFC thing. An internet 'standard' is
hardly going to be defined for message formatting. It is enough to
illustarte what is correct and what is not.

However, since you're so keep to jump up and down on that
information-not-standard part in the RFC, perhaps you should look
through the RFC index sometime and see just how many 'INFORMATIONAL'
tags are in there, and the sorts of things that are
covered. Everything from vendor protocols to some bits of MIME.

> 
> So not only is it not a mandate but according to the article you specified
> it's not even a /standard/ guideline.

Again, you clearly misunderstand how 'standard' is applied here. Your
use of it in that sentence has a differnet meaning to its use in the
RFC definitions.

> So all you've prooven to me (us?) so far is your inability to understand
> written english.  Hmmm,  this arguement isn't going too well for you I think.

It is funny you should bring that up. Clearly you're confused about
the word 'stadnard' as well as many other things.

B>