[wellylug] "The quart-annual top-posting debate"

[Andrej]

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 22:01, Jim Cheetham wrote:

> For me, on a busy mailing list, top-posting means I don't have
> to scroll down into a message to see what's been contributed -
> I can see straight away if this is a serious or interesting
> post. 
As I said: laziness on the behalf of the top poster.  He can't be
bothered.  Not even to scroll, it would appear.

> Bottom posters who don't trim the old message out don't 
> get read. 
Fair enough, courtesy is always required.  I tend to chop of
quotes deeper than 2 levels.  The good old days of Fido :)

> Also, if the *thread* is busy, I already have the complete
> state in my medium-term memory. I don't need to read
> interspersed comments, or the previous message _again_.
So you're a brighter cookie than most, and with a
tremendous memory - good on yah.  That means that
netiquette is only for the dumber amongst us, and the
"bright cookies" can do as they please?


Cheers,
Andrej
-- 
A: because it messes up threading
Q: why should I not reply by top-posting?
A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?