[SpamCop-List] Re: big problem, attn deputies

[John Richards]

Joris Van Damme wrote:
>>> I've poor recollection, but good bookmarks:
>>> 
>>> http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/nquote.html
>> 
>> Referencing someone else's opinion does not prove a point.
>> As we used to say in Dutch:
>> Elke ketter heeft zijn letter.
> 
> Very true, of course.
> 
> However, this ketter is in good company: see Mike's letter.
> 
> Also, I didn't quote to prove a point, I quoted to point to a helpful and
> friendly article that has been around since usenet stone age, and has been
> the singe accepted guideline of its kind ever since. In this article, my
> point is explained very well and very thoroughly, much better then I could
> hope to do in an alien language and this short space.
> 
> For example, what said in the answer to question 9 seems to address a point
> you made earlier. So if you do want to continue the discussion, I suggest
> you try and invalidate what's said in the answer to question 7, in the
> quoted article.
> 
> 
> Joris

Actually this discussion has reared its ugly head several times already
in the spamcop newsgroups, so we're not going over new ground.
Both conventions (bottom posting and top posting) have positives
and negatives.
My habit is to go with whatever convention is already being used
in a given thread. 
My biggest objection to bottom posting is when someone uses it
without trimming the quoted material to a minimal amount.
It is really annoying to have to scroll down through one or more
screens of quoted text before seeing a one-liner reply!
To be fair, this is not much of an issue in these SC newsgroups,
but it is a rampant problem in many other newsgroups.

To answer Question 7, I would say that I don't write to be read
by some faceless mob of newbies who have never read the thread
before. I write to be read by the regulars in that newsgroup.
I routinely follow about 50 different newsgroups, and mostly by the
time I finish reading the latest response in a thread, I will have 
recalled the gist of the post being responded to, so I have no need 
to reread the post being responded to. In the few instances that I 
don't recall the gist, it's a simple matter to read a little further down
in order to jog my memory. 

So, in a nutshell, it's a time saver technique for me.

More than that, though, I find it annoying when people take up
valuable time to castigate a fellow poster for top posting.
I say, live and let live!

-- 
John Richards