Sometimes I use bottom posting, sometimes I use top posting, and sometimes I use middle posting. It depends on the circumstances. If a post contains several points that need separate responses, then I put my response under each point, and do not accumulate all at the bottom as this would make it difficult to associate an answer with a question.
The fact that some people do not view a thread until nearly the end is irrelevant. If a thread has 30 posts it would make the last post unreadable if it contained everything from the start. Have you seen a post with 30 levels of indenting for each different post? That is why most newsreaders and email clients group messages by conversation/thread so that you can step through each post individually. Each post contains just the response so that you don't have to scroll through huge volumes of text in order to pick out the new message. Sometimes the only part of the previous post you leave in is the part for which you are supplying an answer so as to avoid confusion. Where I put my answers depends on the context, so saying that IT MUST ALWAYS BE AT THE BOTTOM doesn't wash with me. -- Tony Marston http://www.tonymarston.net http://www.radicore.org "Ashley Sheridan" <a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk> wrote in message news:200907091022.12752....@ashleysheridan.co.uk... > On Thursday 09 July 2009 09:39:11 Tony Marston wrote: >> There are too many people in this newsgroup with the idea that you MUST >> obey the rules, whatever they are, WITHOUT QUESTION. I do not subscribe >> to >> this notion. I have been working in IT (or DP as it was originally >> called) >> for over 30 years, and in that time I have worked with many groups, and >> each group has had its own version "the rules" (aka "guidelines" or >> "standards"). When moving to a new group the new rules will always be >> different, and will sometimes contradict what you had before. Why is >> this? >> Why do some groups say "do A instead of B" while others say "do B instead >> of A"? Does it make a difference? >> >> The problem partially lies in the way in which the rules are created. It >> starts with some wise ass saying >> (1) Without rules there will be anarchy, so we must have rules. >> (2) There are no such things as bad rules. >> (3) Do not allow any choices. If there is a choice between A and B then >> choose one as the standard. It doesn't matter which one. >> (4) Everybody must be the same, nobody is allowed to be different. >> (5) The rules must be obeyed without question. >> (6) If a rule causes a problem then you must work around it, you cannot >> change the rule. >> >> Item (5) usually exists because the author of the rule cannot justify its >> existence. He just flipped a coin and it came down tails instead of >> heads, >> so that's it. Any moron can make rules like this. >> >> Some people just cannot understand that sometimes a rule was created for >> a >> certain set of circumstances, but if the circumstances change then the >> rule >> needs changing in order to keep up with the times. Because they do not >> understand why the rule was created in the first place, they do not see >> that it needs changing. They also do not have the intelligence to see how >> the rule might be changed to suit the new circumstances. >> >> I have fought against arbitrary and stupid rules for decades, and I will >> keep fighting till the day I die. If you have a problem with that, then >> so >> be it. >> >> -- >> Tony Marston >> http://www.tonymarston.net >> http://www.radicore.org >> >> "Andrew Ballard" <aball...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:b6023aa40907081232k35fa7b1em4ba543ffbb65e...@mail.gmail.com... >> >> > On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Tony >> > Marston<t...@marston-home.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> > [snip] >> > >> >> I don't like this rule, so I choose to disobey it. >> > >> > Now that's some scary ideology. >> > >> > Andrew > > Tony, > > No offense, but Daniel gave the reason why this rule existed, and it does > seem > like a fairly good reason to be fair. The emails are archived on several > web-based lists. If a thread is made up of a mixture of top and bottom > posting, then it won't be easy to read a all online. It might be fine for > reading in a message-by-message basis in an email client if you've been > following the thread since its inception, but a lot of people will come > into > a thread part way, or choose the digest method for email delivery rather > than > one email per message. > > Thanks, > Ash > http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php