Re: Top posting
> [...]
> I understand the reasons why bottom posting is supposed to be better but
> if I am following the thread, which is normally the case if I'm actually
> reading it, then I find it quicker to read just the top section of each
> post rather than having to scroll down past everything I've already
> read. There isn't a problem with context because I can remember that
> from one post to the next. If the author wants to quote a section of the
> previous post they can in the extreme they end up inlining their post.
>[...]
I think it's not necessarily wrong to use top posting. I just feel
like both manners of posting have their place. When you are just
including a mail for reference to something, and then make a reply
that is partly unrelated, I don't mind top posting. When it's a
discussion like this one, I'd say bottom posting is the way to go.
For example, you sent your boss a mail 2 weeks ago about feature x you
want to implement and he sends you a reply now saying 'go ahead'. That
might as well be top posted since that's the end of the conversation.
The mail's only there for reference if you can't make out what it's
about from the subject.On the other hand, in public discussion where
you are replying to mails which elaborate on several points with long
lists of arguments, I think you should bottom post.
Those really are two different use cases, but on a mailinglist it is
handy if everybody has the same style of posting (top or bottom).
Also, many newbies on a mailinglist are not very good with email. It's
one of my pet peeves: when people write a mail in real life, they do
all they can they follow a set standard of writing mail. But when they
go online, they seem to go crazy. Perhaps less so on this list (where
some people seem to forget the role of punctuation), but in places
where HTML mails are allowed, it's really bad. I hope this is one of
the things modern education puts an end to. Instead of teaching 12
year olds how they 'use' MS Word, they could teach em something
usefull for a change.
greets,
Wim
Reply to: