Frank Cox wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 21:01:05 -0600
Bruce Roorda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I much prefer top posting. If I've been following the thread, I want
the new post first. I've already seen the others.
Actually, the correct thing to do is to cut the previous message down to the
essential part that you are replying to, then enter your reply. You don't need
to reproduce the entirety of the previous message; just the relevant portion
(or even a portion of the relevant portion) -- just enough to provide context
for the reply.
I'm equally OK with trimming the previous message to the essentials, or
top posting -- either way saves scrolling down many pages to get to the
new post.
What I don't understand is that I've seen many people criticized for top
posting, but extremely rarely is anyone criticized for leaving the
entire thread in the message, as long as they bottom post. (And there
are a LOT of people who do the latter.)
It thus seems like top posting is seen as a much larger "sin" than
bottom posting without trimming the previous posts.
To me, between top posting, or bottom posting at the end of a totally
untrimmed thread, I'd much prefer to read the top post. That way, I know
right away if I need to scroll down to get the context of the thread (in
many cases, I don't because I've been following it), or if it's even
worth doing so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
