Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:40:14AM -0500, Ron Johnson 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.
Or who reads quite a lot of mail from outhouse users.
>> 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.
Good point!, but I regret it is more to do with laziness and this "throw
away and damn the consequences[1]" way of life. :(
One of the mailing lists I am on suffers horribly from top posters, the
same software is also availabe for windoze. The admin occassionaly posts
a message saying along the lines of "bottom posting is the preferred
method ..." with the consequence that each post grows + grows + grows
until it gets really annoying scrolling just to read some silly remark.
It was mentioned that inline posting and deleting unnecessary text is a
better method, but that was shrugged off as being too confusing. :o
So in that situation I was happier[2] seeing a silly top posting
message.
[1] Remembering the story of the Big Mac which was forgotten about in a
cupboard and when the person noticed it there a year or so later it
looked just as "fresh" as the day it was purchased - no sign of decay
... nothing, not even the rodents etc. had bothered it.
[2] Only because I didn't have to press <space> a dozen or so times.
--
Chris.
======
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other
possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
-- Stephen F Roberts
Reply to: