Re: [OT] top posting
On Jan 14, 2008 1:57 PM, Alex Samad <alex@samad.com.au> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 10:32:53AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On 01/14/08 10:21, Ebanutiy Ebanatik Ebanatovich wrote:
> > > Sorry for offtopic but I'm wondering if the cause of avoiding of top
> > > posting is in something technical (e.g. to help forum software to
> > > create weekly digests correctly) or is it a question of etiquette?
> >
> > Rationality, because while some cultures read left->right, and
> > others read right->left, all read top->bottom. None read bottom->top.
> [flame on]
> but we do read chronologically (in date order) and I for one hate having to go
> 3 pages down to read the answer to the previous email (in a threaded news
> reader!).
If you're having to scroll down to read new text, the person who sent
the message included way, way too much quoted material. Bottom
posting is not the opposite to top posting, it only solves half the
problem on deeply-quoted replies. You named the other half of the
problem that conversational style (correct) quoting fixes.
> Although I do admit that if you start in the last email of a thread it easier
> to read top to bottom
Only if the lines are also reversed, kind of like how STOP AHEAD is
painted on pavement with the word STOP first, then AHEAD after so you
pass over the first word in the statement before the second.
--
Paul Johnson
baloo@ursine.ca
Reply to: