[SpamCop-List] Re: "Top Posting"

[Mike Easter]

Robert wrote:
> Thanks everyone for your feedback. I find the arguments against
> top-posting (including those given in Usenet FAQs) weak at best,
> especially the ad-hominem; however in the interest of not keeping
> this discussion going beyond its useful life, I shall say no more in
> the matter. No one is going to be convinced on either side, looks
> like I dug up a dead horse. My apologies.

One way of oversimplifying this very contentious subject is to realize
that there are basically two different methods of corresponding, neither
of which are 'bottom posting'.

There is a corporate email structure, or 'top posting' in which the
correspondence which preceded is maintained /intact/ 'for the record'
/below/ the reply, ie the reply is posted on top of everything which
preceded it, which is left unchanged.   This same structure is
occasionally or rarely used in some newsgroups for various reasons which
could be discussed as a separate topic.  It may also be used in
non-corporate or personal emails 'out of habit' of those accustomed to
corresponding in that way.

The other is 'normal' newsgroup posting, which is significantly trimmed
and 'contextualized' to create 'inline' comments.  This structure lends
itself to an ongoing conversational style, and is 'imperative' in those
groups which correspond that way, because the above mentioned
top-posting is disruptive to those groups.

Trimming and contextualizing the response is a little bit more work for
the poster, but it also lends itself to having the specific 'words'
before hir while the response is being edited, and of course is
essential to the sequencing of 'progressive' exchanges which cannot
possibly be predicted at the time of the 'first' reply..

-- 
Mike Easter