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

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

On 2009-03-22 11:45, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 04:09:29AM -0700, Angus Auld wrote:
[snipped **H E A P S** of unnecessary text]
Proof reading might also be a good idea, as is evidenced by my mistakenly saying that top-posting is the established method here. ;)
Bottom-posting of course is the prevailing method on debian-user.
My apologies to all. The rest of my comments withstanding.

Bottom posting of course is just as bad or worse than top posting.

The only person who can say that with a straight face is one who has spent too much time using Windows.

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

At least with top posting you don't have to scroll through _all_ the previous posts just to see if the reply is relevant.

The problem isn't bottom-posting, it's...

More importantly, IMHO is deleting any text which is not relevant.

This. Which should be done whether you top- or bottom-post. It's just that with top-posting it's easy to forget to snip out all the crud.

Yeah, OK this is technically a "bottom post" post, but only because I am
replying to your one point, but if there were other points I would reply
under each point (snipping unnecessay text) in turn.

Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

"Freedom is not a license for anarchy."

Reply to: