On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, - Edwin - wrote: > On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:49:25 -0600 > "Nix, Robert P." <Nix.Robert@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Just to take the other viewpoint, I prefer to have the > > newest material at the top of the post. If I've been > > following a "conversation", I don't want to have to relive > > the whole thing just to get to the next piece of > > information. I want the newest, most relavant information > > at the top. If that's "top posting" (I've never heard the > > term before now), then I'm all for it. If I get 10 messages > > in my in-box on the same subject, I really don't want to > > have to look through the first one ten times. I'd rather > > see the newest stuff at the top of each. Add to that the > > fact that the e-mail software that I use (both in Linux and > > Windows) places me above the quote at the start, and you > > have the makings of your typical "top poster". I refuse to > > take the time to cut the signature created by the client > > and move it to the bottom. Sorry; just not happening. > > ...[snip]... > > Hmm... is it just me? Why does it feel like there's lots of > "I"'s up there? I thought the ML is for "us"? ;) all right, i've had about enough with the lame logic being used to justify top posting, so let me explain this. first, top posting is wrong. no, this is not subjective, and it's not a matter of personal preference. it's wrong. deal with it, and move on. but, you ask, *why* is it wrong? ah, i'm so glad you asked. the whole reason for bottom posting is, of course, to allow the top text to define the "context" of the response -- in short, to lay the groundwork for the response to make sense. "but," say those who like top posting, "i really appreciate the convenience of having the solution at the top so i don't have to scroll all the way down to see the answer." if, in fact, you can get everything you need from the very top of the posting, that means that that response didn't *require* any context, and therefore, there shouldn't have *been* any following text. what this represents is a response by someone too freakin' lazy to have removed unnecessary context. as an example, suppose you read a post that states: "if you're really keen on setting up a fax server under linux, i strongly recommend hylafax. lots of people use it, it's available <here>, and there's a mailing list." top posters will point at this and squeal with girlish delight, "see? it's great that that's at the top of the post, since i get everything i need and don't have to keep reading." true enough. it's also true, however, that that post didn't require any context -- it's entirely self-contained -- and if there *was* any text following that was left over from the previous post, it quite simple SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE! (forgive the shouting, but i really want to get this across.) this would have been a perfect example of someone responding to a post and leaving *way* too much superfluous trash in the response that needn't have been there. in a nutshell, yes, the passage above should have been top-posted only because, being self-contained, it should have been the *only* thing in the post. OTOH, what if you read the passage: "based on my experience, your first proposed solution would be too expensive -- i strongly recommend your second approach." i *defy* you to think that that would make any sense top posted. it wouldn't for the simple reason that it absolutely *requires* context. get it? in short, then, the only half-compelling reason for top posting is so readers don't have to wade through piles of *unnecessary* context to get to what they want. but the solution to this is *not* top posting. rather, it's to berate people for not clipping their responses to provide only the context required. rday p.s. and as for the poster above who seemed to suggest that he was going to continue top posting because he preferred it and because his mailer appeared to promote it, well, what can i say? stupid, lazy and inconsiderate. a really unpleasant combination.
