[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
[school-discuss] About Top/Bottom posting
- To: schoolforge-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [school-discuss] About Top/Bottom posting
- From: Bill Barowy <wbarowy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 09:39:14 -0500
- Delivered-to: archiver@seul.org
- Delivered-to: schoolforge-discuss-outgoing@seul.org
- Delivered-to: schoolforge-discuss@seul.org
- Delivery-date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 09:39:18 -0500
- In-reply-to: <200503061745.10428@complexity.summit.net>
- References: <4228CFEA.4070408@sbcglobal.net> <200503062231.43926.troy@banther-trx.homeunix.com> <200503061745.10428@complexity.summit.net>
- Reply-to: schoolforge-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-schoolforge-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: KMail/1.5.1
Just a couple of counter-points to the tradition of bottom posting that is
sometimes evoked when someone top posts. Whether using web mail, or an email
client, prior messages are there to read if one has not been following the
discussion, so having prior content at the top is not really all that
convenient.
Since one is interested in what the sender has to contribute, and since
windows open with the content at the top visible, it is far easier to skim a
discussion one has not followed if senders have top posted.
Finally, and personally, I actually find it annoying when the reminder to
bottom post is evoked with a replied subject line that is the same as the
offending message. Thinking there is content in the reply, I'm forced to
scroll all the way to the bottom of the message, only to find some scolding
about top posting and not finding a subject-related reply!
But then there are folks who don't quote prior senders at all, making the
whole argument irrelevant!
bb