Top posting is great because it's the latest entry, and thus most relevant. News groups are about getting questions answered, and not long discourses aimed at late entrants. If someone picks up the thread months later, the onus should be on them to wade through the history to update themselves. A thread should be in the interest of current contributers, not archive sifters.
Bottom posting unfortunately obliges everyone in the current discussion to wade and sift through volumes of info to find the latest .2c, like my comments are here........ It also obliges people to trim and butcher posts in the interest of brevity, which messes with the flow of the discussion. Roland On 24 February 2013 15:15, Erik Christiansen <[email protected]>wrote: > On 24.02.13 02:23, andy pugh wrote: > > That isn't the way it is meant to be. Bottom-posting (As you describe) > > is even worse than top-posting (which I despise). > > It is Full-quoting which can make Bottom-posting about as bad as > top-posting, I think. (See sig) > > Reply paragraphs following N short _relevant_ quoted paragraphs will be > Bottom-posting or In-line replies, depending on N. > > Editing is the key, but it can add quite a few seconds of extra thought. > > Erik > > -- > A: Because it breaks the logical sequence of the discussion. > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? > A: Top-posting. > Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
