Collin Kidder wrote:
> I'm with Thomas. I think that, while inline posting is a good thing,
> bottom posting is dead stupid and wastes my time. It is far easier to
> follow a thread with top posting as the relevant text is right there at
> the top ready to be read.
That sounds more like an argument to not including the original text at all.
As far as I'm concerned, in-line posting *with* editing of the text is
the *only* reasonable thing to do. Top-posting is lazy, arrogant, and assumes
reading material on a recently read thread (so the context is fresh). It
offers no advantages when reading a posting after-the-fact or taken in
isolation. The reader has to first re-establish the context, which means
reading the message from the bottom up.
Bottom posting (w/o editing) is only *slightly* less lazy, but doesn't
make the assumption that the reader is current on the context, at least.
Bottom posting w/o editing forces the reader to wade through old material
that isn't relevant, however, to reestablish the context.
The argument based on being able to link back up through a thread to
get context is a non-sequitur. If one really believes that's the case,
then don't include the original text *at all* (whether top or bottom
posting) [and see how many people complain about lack of context!]
If there is some context that is relevant to what's being
added, seeing *just that context* immediately prior to reading the new material
is invaluable.
[This *isn't* a bottom-posted message - it just looks like one because
of the context editing!]
--
Steve Wampler -- swampler@noao.edu
The gods that smiled on your birth are now laughing out loud.
