Re: [OT] Re: Samba update moved my shares (again)
On 2005-04-23, a.list.address@gmail.com penned:
>
> Actually, there is one good reason for top posting that I can think
> of, and continue to experience often: When people fail to trim
> quotes and then bottom post, you often have to scroll way down just
> to see what the current poster is saying, even if it's only
> something simple like "thanks." That gets really annoying! Top
> posting ensures that the latest post is always at the top, where it
> can be immediately read. So is it more trouble to trim useless
> stuff and make a good bottom post, or to top post and scroll down if
> you need to see the quoted material?
Top-posting may work well fine for a message and its response, but
when there's a conversation, it gets ugly. Especially because most
people around here use inline or bottom posting, so what you get is a
conversation that's completely out of order, unless some kind soul
responds to the top poster and moves the top post to the more
conversationally-appropriate place. That may seem rude to the
top-poster, but it's a kindness to the rest of the people reading and
contributing to the conversation.
I disagree that one-line responses are a good reason for top-posting.
If a one-line response is all that's required, you can do something
like:
Joe blow said:
[snip really great info on kernel compiles]
Thanks, Joe!
There's only one example I can think of in which top-posting is a good
idea, but it's not top-posting in the traditional sense. It's when
you're forwarding a conversation to a group that's unfamiliar with the
discussion. Then you can introduce the discussion by saying something
like, "I found this thread about (x, y, z) on (some place) -- What do
you guys think?" This differs from traditional top-posting in that it's
more like your own post in which you're referencing material, and it
maintains an appropriate conversational flow.
--
monique
Ask smart questions, get good answers:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Reply to: