On 10 May 2010 15:03, John Kaufmann <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Harold, > > > In a message dated 2010.05.10 03:49 -0500, Harold Fuchs wrote: > > "Bottom posting" is placing your text below (at the bottom of) the text to >> which you are replying. "Top posting" is placing your text above (on top >> of) >> the text to which you are replying. There is a religious war about the >> sanctity of the one and the total ungodliness of the other. Please don't >> ask >> why. The "third way" is to intersperse your comments within the text, with >> each comment immediately below the text to which it relates. >> > > FWIW: In the 1980s, when it was DARPAnet, it seems like I only ever saw > your "third way" - but then it was an almost entirely technical community, > and people were both comfortable with editing and task-oriented enough to > appreciate the efficiency of responding directly on point. When it became > the Internet, the user demographic changed, and with it some of the > fastidiousness about communication etiquette, prompting explicit > recommendations like those of RFC 1855 to "quote only relevant parts"; > "Content of a follow-up post should exceed quoted content." Then Microsoft > introduced Outlook, with default behavior of posting above a fully-quoted > message, and top-posting soon became "normal"; as many users know, MS > invented the Internet. > > John > > > I was using e-mail before screens and before the local devices had any storage. Messages had to be printed as they came down the wire. If you top posted it meant the reader could hit the Break/Interrupt key after reading your stuff and avoid having to re-print stuff s/he already knew. It was possible but hard to bottom post. It was possible but much harder to "middle post".
E-mail was designed for conversations. In a conversation it is not customary to repeat everything that's already been said before saying something new. -- Harold Fuchs London, England Please reply *only* to [email protected]
