Pedestrian crossing incident

[Tony W]

"Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What's wrong with top posting? It seems the most logical, that instead of having to scroll down
> through everything that has gone before, you can read the posting straight away,
and
> if you need subsequently to re-read earlier postings, they are still available.

In principle -- nothing. In practice, a mix to top & bottom posting makes arguments difficult
to follow.

The convention is bottom posting.

Of course you could drive on the wrong side of the road -- most of the world does. But it wouldn't
make a lot of sense when you hit the juggernaut.

T

 

[David Damerell]

Tony W <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>What's wrong with top posting? It seems the most logical, that instead of having to scroll down
>>through everything that has gone before, you can read the posting straight away,
>and

^ bing! Outlook Express - Just Say No.

>>if you need subsequently to re-read earlier postings, they are still available.
>In principle -- nothing. In practice, a mix to top & bottom posting makes arguments difficult to
>follow. The convention is bottom posting.

No no no. The convention is, or should be, interspersed posting. Bottom posting is little better
than top posting; and it is nor simply a matter of convention when interspersed posting actually
leads to more readable articles.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!

 

[Tony W]

"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Rwh*[email protected]...

>
> No no no. The convention is, or should be, interspersed posting. Bottom posting is little better
> than top posting; and it is nor simply a matter of convention when interspersed posting actually
> leads to more readable articles.

Pedant

The convention is interspersing BELOW.

If commenting on the whole post you bottom post.

Simple enough to understand and do (even with OE)

T

 

[David Damerell]

Tony W <[email protected]> wrote:
>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>No no no. The convention is, or should be, interspersed posting. Bottom posting is little better
>>than top posting; and it is nor simply a matter of convention when interspersed posting actually
>>leads to more readable articles.
>Pedant

This is not pedantry; the disease of bottom-posting at the end of the entire previous article is
just as bad as top-posting, albeit less common these days.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!

 

[James Hodson]

On 03 Feb 2003 16:42:29 +0000 (GMT), David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:

>Tony W <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>No no no. The convention is, or should be, interspersed posting. Bottom posting is little better
>>>than top posting; and it is nor simply a matter of convention when interspersed posting actually
>>>leads to more readable articles.
>
>This is not pedantry; the disease of bottom-posting at the end of the entire previous article is
>just as bad as top-posting...

I agree, David.

In the world of Usenet (and e-mail , for that matter), I don't particularly like trundling through a
few pages of quoted text only to find "I agree" at the bottom. Come to think of it, that's pretty
much what I'm doing here. :-/

James

--
A credit limit is NOT a target.