Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting

[Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net>]

On 2009-03-24 07:06, Chris Bannister wrote:
> 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. :(
[snip]
> [2] Only because I didn't have to press <space> a dozen or so times.

Yet another reason for in-/bottom-posting with context: finding the 
email that it is replying to can be a bit tricky.

http://members.cox.net/ron.l.johnson/Far_away_replies.png

--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

"Freedom is not a license for anarchy."