Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting
On 2009-03-22 11:52, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Ron Johnson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
On 2009-03-22 11:45, Chris Bannister wrote:
Bottom posting of course is just as bad or worse than top posting.
The only person who can say that with a straight face is one who has spent
too much time using Windows.
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
This isn't true. Come enter the 21st Century, it started nearly a decade
ago. ;-) Top posting works well in a modern threaded mail reader (all of
which, incidentally, support HTML email). Because *you* are a curmudgeon
doesn't mean everyone else has to be. ;-)
I'm proud to be a middle-aged hater of gmail, Outlook, file managers
and over-reliance on GUIs, and lover of OpenVMS, bash, xnethack and
Your example looks like this in a threaded mail reader:
Mail 1: Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
Mail 2: A: Top-posting.
Mail 3: Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
Mail 4: A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read
Having used a threaded MUA for 15 years, I can confidently say that
no MUA reorganizes posts.
It looks no different than a discussion forum or other normal conversation.
In fact, reading bottom-posted threads in a *modern mail reader* is
annoying as it forces the reader to display a bunch of extraneous
unnecessary text (the quoted material). I just read it in the previous
post, I don't need to see it again.
Emails, unlike web forum posts, tend to get deleted. Thus,
retaining context is useful. Another reason to retain context: even
for people who retain all their email, long multi-branched threads
can make it hard to find a post's parent.
I bottom-post out of force of habit, however, it's archaic and generally
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
"Freedom is not a license for anarchy."