[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Top posting (a different point of view)

Is it really necessary to get so exercised about top- vs bottom-posting?

On 6/10/05, Hubert Chan <hubert@uhoreg.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 20:10:35 -0400, Patrick Wiseman <pwiseman@gmail.com> said:


> Do you see why it's nice to have the context provided immediately?  With
> a bottom-posted message, I can quickly scan the original message and
> recall the context that I had read before.  If I have to scroll to see
> the reply (which should be very rare, if quoted text is trimmed
> properly), I just have to hit [space] once or twice, and I can easily
> tell when I've reached the reply because my mail reader colours quoted
> text.

My usual practice, actually, is to edit and interpolate, as if we were
having a conversation.


> Top posters also tend to have the horrible habit of not trimming the
> original message to only what's relevant...

That's a different issue.

> > ... I have my email ordered most-recent-first, and it saves me a _lot_ of
> > time, whether the individual emails are top- or bottom-posted! ...
> I have my mailing lists threaded, and it's nice to be able to just read
> the first message in a thread and tell my mail reader that I'm not
> interested in the rest of the messages in the thread.  I can't imagine
> how you would do that with most-recent-first.  If you just read the
> latest message in a thread and find that you're not interested, you
> can't just kill the thread because you don't know if that message is off
> on a tangent, or if you really aren't interested in that thread.

You do it your way.  I'll do it mine.  OK with you?

I bottom post in this forum (mostly) because it's the norm here;
etiquette probably requires that we accommodate the lowest common
denominator.  But don't get all righteous about it, for heaven's sake!


Reply to: