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

Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting



On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote:
On 2009-03-22 11:45, Chris Bannister wrote:

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?


This isn't true.  Come enter the 21st Century, it started nearly a decade ago. ;-)  Top posting works well in a modern threaded mail reader (all of which, incidentally, support HTML email).  Because *you* are a curmudgeon doesn't mean everyone else has to be. ;-)

Your example looks like this in a threaded mail reader:

Mail 1: Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? 
Mail 2: A: Top-posting.
Mail 3: Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
Mail 4: A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.

It looks no different than a discussion forum or other normal conversation.  In fact, reading bottom-posted threads in a *modern mail reader* is annoying as it forces the reader to display a bunch of extraneous unnecessary text (the quoted material).  I just read it in the previous post, I don't need to see it again.

I bottom-post out of force of habit, however, it's archaic and generally unnecessary.

--
Chris




Reply to: