I find top posting superior to bottom posting. That way if I've followed a thread I don't have to
scroll through the drivel that has already been posted.
That includes scrolling through the top posting argument that has already been posted.
And top posting is considered acceptable. The whole concept of not top posting is absurd and nothing
more than and attempt to standardize the newsgroups with a system of posting that is neither
accepted by all, nor required.
And besides, I like top posting.
I also like posting in between comments that specifically answer questions.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim McNamara" <
[email protected]> Newsgroups:
rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.tech Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 6:54 PM Subject: Re: A fundamental
flaw with bikes/cycles
> In article <
[email protected]>, Walter Mitty <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Tim McNamara <
[email protected]> brightened my day with his incisive
wit
> > when in
news:[email protected] he conjectured that:
> >
> > What's top posting?
> >
> > >
> > > Please don't top post.
> > >
> > > Bikes with levers rather than pedals have been around for about 120 years or so in
> > > documentable form. There were several Ordinaries with such systems as well as safeties. That
> > > they have all been abandoned is pretty telling. For that matter, Kirkpatrick MacMillan's
> > > alleged bicycle used treadles rather than pedals 150 years ago.
> > >
>
> Top posting is putting your response on top of the quoted text from the post you're replying to.
>
> There's a logical reason for no top posting: look at the above, which is quoted directtly from
> your post. It looks like I said "What's top posting" when in fact that was your question. That
> makes it hard to tell who said what and to have a logical, flowing conversation. So, you should
> quote text and put your reply *under* the text you're replying to. Then the next person comes
> along and does the same. The result is a thread that's easy to follow.
>
> The other reason is that often top posters add a one line comment, and quote 400 lines of text
> below it, wasting bandwidth. Granted this is less important nowadays with DSL and cable and 56 K
> modems, but it's still "good housekeeping."
>
> Now, you may well be trolling as I've seen your handle in this newsgroup before. If so, then this
> post is not directed towards your edification but for that of participants who may not know the
> simple ettiquette of Usenet.
"Tim McNamara" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <
[email protected]>, Walter Mitty <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Tim McNamara <
[email protected]> brightened my day with his incisive
wit
> > when in
news:[email protected] he conjectured that:
> >
> > What's top posting?
> >
> > >
> > > Please don't top post.
> > >
> > > Bikes with levers rather than pedals have been around for about 120 years or so in
> > > documentable form. There were several Ordinaries with such systems as well as safeties. That
> > > they have all been abandoned is pretty telling. For that matter, Kirkpatrick MacMillan's
> > > alleged bicycle used treadles rather than pedals 150 years ago.
> > >
>
> Top posting is putting your response on top of the quoted text from the post you're replying to.
>
> There's a logical reason for no top posting: look at the above, which is quoted directtly from
> your post. It looks like I said "What's top posting" when in fact that was your question. That
> makes it hard to tell who said what and to have a logical, flowing conversation. So, you should
> quote text and put your reply *under* the text you're replying to. Then the next person comes
> along and does the same. The result is a thread that's easy to follow.
>
> The other reason is that often top posters add a one line comment, and quote 400 lines of text
> below it, wasting bandwidth. Granted this is less important nowadays with DSL and cable and 56 K
> modems, but it's still "good housekeeping."
>
> Now, you may well be trolling as I've seen your handle in this newsgroup before. If so, then this
> post is not directed towards your edification but for that of participants who may not know the
> simple ettiquette of Usenet.