On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 06:11:17 +0800 Jason Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:On Sunday 19 September 2004 05:37, Andre Dubuc wrote:[...]Seems to me much easier to scan the Subject, see how it's developing by reading the reply on the top, rather than have to wade through even snipped old material.
This is certainly true for some active subscribers to this and many other lists. But it isn't the point.
And if you jumped into the middle of the thread, how would you know what was going on without scrolling down to find out?
Just want to add/emphasize one thing regarding this point:
When I try to find out something, I usually spend time googling and reading the archives,
This is the point.
Note that pro top-posters generally say it's more convenient for them whereas people who advocate appropriate posting (normally threaded, sometimes bottom, rarely top) say it works better when using the posts as a reference.
If you google for a solution before wasting the time of volunteers over a frequently answered question, and choose the concluding post in a relevant thread, it's a far better reference if some discipline has been observed while the thread has been developing. The point of lists like this is twofold - to answer questions now and to provide a reference archive for the future.
Top posters seem to neglect this aspect entirely in favour of immediate personal convenience. And even that is arguable. The conventional reply on this topic is along the lines of:
Because it destroys the flow of an argument.
Why is top posting bad?
Peter.
-- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
