On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 10:31 -0700, John M. Anderson wrote: > > But I only keep the stuff that's useful to me. I delete threads quite > > regularly. If someone replies to a thread I've deleted, top-posting > > provides no context. Each e-mail is thus standalone. > > > > > Whats the verdict on middle posting? > > > The most common complaint by people I hear is that they don't want to > > scroll down through tons of quoted material. This happens because > > bottom posters are as lazy as top posters. The only true way is to > > middle post, replying to people's questions as they ask them, and > > trimming old replies and old quotes.
Personally, I disagree with Michael. I find it annoying (but not overly so) that he always leaves a pointless copy of the other person's sig or the list footer. Personally, I would call what Michael does bottom posting with the caveat that he sometimes misses a little crud while trimming. I choose to believe that your question was an example of why blindly middle posting is flawed. The full meaning of your question is apparent until the reader reaches the following paragraph. Clever. Perhaps instead of calling it middle posting or bottom posting, we should call it staggered posting or context aware posting. -- "English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark allies, knocks them over, and goes through their pockets for loose grammar." -- Seen on IRC /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
