[SpamCop-List] Re: "Top Posting"

[PopRivet]

"Mike Easter" <MikeE at ster.invalid> wrote in message
news:bumc12$73p$1 at news.spamcop.net...
| 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
|

Now, that is a good summary; kudos.