Re: I WILL ASSIST YOU GET YOUR FUNDS
Bryce wrote:
> Citing a website for which you yourself are the technical contact is
> hardly authoritative.
Perhaps not, but I don't think that's the point. The point is to avoid
having to take up space on this list, repeatedly, to explain his
reasoning. I applaud him for making his reasoning available publicly,
without having to repost it to this list every time it's needed.
> Top-posting is plenty readable for these shorter threads. Welcome to
> the 21st Century!
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting#Top-posting
Which says:
>
> Top-posting is viewed as seriously destructive to mailing-list
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_mailing_list> digests, where
> multiple levels of top-posting are difficult to skip. The worst case
> would be top-posting while including an entire digest as the original
> message.
>
> Some believe that "top-posting" is appropriate for interpersonal
> e-mail, but inline posting should always be applied to threaded
> discussions such as newsgroups.
>
Your argument that top-posting is readable for shorter threads doesn't
take into account that often threads that originated as "short" often
grow. It also doesn't take into account that it makes reading the
archives inconsistent, with some threads top-posted and some
intersperse-posted, etc.
It also doesn't take into account that nature of this particular list,
where top-posting is not acceptable. If you want to be part of this
community, then you need to conform to the community's mores, whether or
not you agree with the logic for those mores.
--
Kent West
Westing Peacefully <http://kentwest.blogspot.com>
Reply to: