OE ate the [OT] tag, sorry...

Chris McSweeny wrote:
> I've been bottom posting since you asked, but don't actually see why it's
> such a big deal - unless you're wanting to reply to specific points one by
> one, as opposed to just quoting the original post for context. IMO it's 
> just
> what you're used to more than anything - with our work intranet newsgroups
> the convention is to top post, so I've got pretty used to it, and don't
> really find it a drag at all, and as you say it's easier (my mail client
> wants me to write at the top). If there's a need to reply to individual
> points, then our convention on those NGs is to use the keyword "inline" at
> the top, and then bottom post with replies interspersed as necessary, but
> personally I actually find that more cumbersome unless it's really needed,
> so try to avoid it.
>
> Exactly why is that harder to read than if I'd quoted the post I'm 
> replying
> to which you'd already read (or written) at the top? You'd just have to 
> skip
> over it before getting to the part of interest.

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?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style

I top-post for personal and business email. IMHO, for mailing lists bottom 
posting is more appropriate (for the record, I'm not an "old Usenet user", 
I'm relatively new to mailing lists and newsgroups).

I think the difference is that with email and intranet everyone is expected 
to follow the entire thread. With a maling list or a forum, you should be 
able to jump in at any time, and get the relevant context.

Notice that you very rarely see people complain about bottom posting. But 
there are many people who find top posting annoying.

http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

Vitaliy 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist