Ok. I'm going to break my promise to myself again because I'm just
overwhelmingly curious about this. [...] the argument against top
posting seems to be primarily one of etiquette-or
netiquette. To me this is like saying that it's not proper etiquette to fly
a high wing plane (or low wing depending on what you fly).
IMHO top posting and bottom posting each have their uses, as does "nop" posting
(posting a reply which, does not quote anything, but does address points in the
thread). Nop posting works in some situations if the post is self-contained.
Etiquette is based on the idea of making things easy and pleasant for others.
To use the (not very good) airplane analogy, it's more like saying it's not
proper etiquette to fly =passengers= in a low wing plane (because they can't
see down) or in a high wing plane (because it makes them look like sissies* ).
The focus is on the passengers.
Personally, if the post lends itself I like to see a snippet of what is being
replied to before I see the reply to that point, and then to see the next
snippet before the reply to =it=. I do not want to see a whole slug first, and
it annoys me to have to scroll down the entire post before I get to the
original material. I often skip those (they are often followed by "me too" or
by comments whose reltionship to the post requires me to go back and find
specific things there.
Posts come to servers way out of order, so the context is often needed.
However, there are some threads in which the context is evident from the
original material, or where the posts tend to be presented in order to most
readers. In those cases, posting the reply first, and then the post being
replied to for reference =just in case= it's needed, works best for most.
However, on USENET, everyone is an expert whose Exalted Opinions (tm) must be
followed by fiat. When this doesn't happen, sixteen million rulers come down
on somebody's knuckles, in the name of kindness.
Jose
* well, I had to think of something!
--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)
|