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

[Andrej]

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 22:01, Jim Cheetham wrote:
As I said: laziness on the behalf of the top poster.  He can't be 
bothered.  Not even to scroll, it would appear. Fair enough, 
courtesy is always required.  I tend to chop of quotes deeper 
than 2 levels.  The good old days of Fido :) 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?

Yep - still doesn't make sense to in that way.


> Oddly, Phillip's comments actually read correctly to me
> initially ... it took me a few moments after hitting reply to
> realise that they are "the wrong way round" ;-)
>
> 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. Bottom posters who don't trim the old message out don't
> get read. Quit wasting my time, bandwidth, local disk storage,
> and mouse wheel ... my loss, perhaps.
>
> 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_.
>
> And as for archives ... if the only message in the entire
> thread that was saved by the archive was "yours", well, bottom
> posting with full preservation might be the only thing between
> us and the collapse of civilization. Or possibly google might
> rescue us ... or perhaps it really wasn't that important.
>
> -jim
> "All mail clients suck. Including mutt."

-- 
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?