> > Message: 9 > Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 21:59:16 -0500 > From: Gregory Pittman <gregp_ky at yahoo.com> > Subject: Re: [scribus] top-posting > To: Scribus User Mailing List <scribus at lists.scribus.info> > Message-ID: <4CFB0004.6000603 at yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 12/04/2010 08:20 PM, Nicholas Newman wrote: >> On 05 Dec 2010, at 00:17, scribus-request at lists.scribus.info wrote: >> >>> On 12/04/2010 02:21 PM, ehud.kaplan at gmail.com wrote: >>>> What does top post mean? I use Thunderbird as a front end for gmail and >>>> clicked on Reply-list. >>>> EK >>>> >>>> On 12/4/2010 3:53 PM, Peter Linnell wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>> >>> Top posting is when you put your reply above the original text, as you >>> did above. It's considered bad manners by most people because it means >>> that you read everything in reverse chronological order. I'm guessing >>> that Outlook and other Winderz email programs work that way because >>> dead-tree files are always done that way and office workers are used to >>> reading things backwards. >>> >>> >> >> Actually top-posting merely assumes that as a diligent follower of files and >> events one is already familiar with what has gone before, and does not need >> to re-familiarise oneself with everything that has been written before. >> Thus one may as well just read the latest posting, at the top. >> However when one is dealing with more than say 20 or 30 things at the same >> time and new installments come only after a few days, bottom-posting can >> seem like a good idea because one has the entire history in front of one in >> chronological order, rather like being able to read the entire history of >> laws in England, starting perhaps a bit late with Magna Carta, before >> ploughing through the rest and getting to the latest one. >> However as both arguments can apply to both top and bottom posting, does it >> really matter? Can't we all adapt to both, whatever the habits of the >> writer? Personally I find no problem with either. > > For this list we have decided to recommend bottom-posting; it's not a > rule, but a strong preference. For us I think it's a bit like the same > reason a story starts at the top and ends at the bottom. > > Another thing I see is that many of those who top-post simply keep > adding onto a post rather than trimming it down to the part they wish to > comment about. Especially if you're familiar with a thread, you don't > need the entire thread contained in each post. > > Finally, all too often it seems that at least some who top post haven't > actually taken the time to read the whole post, and therefore may be > adding things that are not novel or perhaps superseded by comments from > someone more knowledgeable than they are. > > _Sometimes_ it may make sense to add comments inside a previous post, > where specific items can be in close proximity to what they refer to, > but when a lot of this inline posting is done, it's clearly harder to > understand at times, and one also has trouble keeping track of who said > what. > > Greg >
Good points Greg, and I for one am also perfectly happy to bottom-post; The trouble with middle-posting, as you say, is keeping track, but also actually noticing them during a quick "reminder-scan". Nicholas Nicholas Newman Nicholas.Newman at Skynet.be
