Top or Bottom Posting?

Since I have been posting here, I top post 95% of the time. But I know
there are some here who are mightily upset by top posting. I don't expect
unanimity on this issue, but what's anybody's choice and your logic behind
it?

James
'top posting just seems more efficient'

I top post. And I prefer to read top posting. If I need to see previous
posts in the message I scroll down. With my newsreader it works better for
me. But I don't turn it into a religion.

Ken

"James Higby" heezerbumfrool[at]hotmail[dot]com wrote in message
...
Since I have been posting here, I top post 95% of the time. But I know
there are some here who are mightily upset by top posting. I don't expect
unanimity on this issue, but what's anybody's choice and your logic behind
it?

James
'top posting just seems more efficient'

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:25:22 -0600, James Higby
heezerbumfrool[at]hotmail[dot]com wrote:

Since I have been posting here, I top post 95% of the time. But I know
there are some here who are mightily upset by top posting. I don't
expect
unanimity on this issue, but what's anybody's choice and your logic
behind
it?

People who get upset about need to start taking some downers.

I feel strongly

"James Higby" heezerbumfrool[at]hotmail[dot]com wrote in message
...
Since I have been posting here, I top post 95% of the time. But I know
there are some here who are mightily upset by top posting. I don't expect
unanimity on this issue, but what's anybody's choice and your logic behind
it?

James
'top posting just seems more efficient'



both ways.

Bruce

In , on 01/24/2005
at 06:25 PM, "James Higby" heezerbumfrool[at]hotmail[dot]com said:

Since I have been posting here, I top post 95% of the time. But I know
there are some here who are mightily upset by top posting. I don't expect
unanimity on this issue, but what's anybody's choice and your logic behind
it?

Bottom posting is massively prefered. Of course, this assumes you don't
quote an entire message and lazily leave it at the bottom.

The idea of quoting is to provide context to your remarks. Some folks quote
long text, appending a single line or two, and the context is lost. It's
much easier to follow restricted quote-reply sequences. Which allows for
quoting multiple (short) parts of the original.

To me, top posting is just lazy. Of course, it's sometimes hard to reverse
things and suddenly bottom post when a series has already started with top
posting, and you need to quote 2 generations back.

Just my opinion. I'd say that top posting isn't horrible by itself ... but
it does promote over-quoting.

Nick

James Higby thought on it a while and then offered the following:
Since I have been posting here, I top post 95% of the time. But I know
there are some here who are mightily upset by top posting. I don't expect
unanimity on this issue, but what's anybody's choice and your logic behind
it?

I'm one of the bottom posters, James. For me, it makes things much
easier to read when the pertinent point(s) that you're replying to is
directly above your reply. But, I recognize that not everyone sees it
the same way.

I can live with either method of posting. FWIW, there is something that
I find to be even more important. I would be extremely pleased if folks
did some judicious "snipping", rather than repeating the whole thing
reply after reply after reply...

Larry
'striving for brevity and clarity'

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:25:22 -0600, "James Higby" heezerbumfrool[at]hotmail[dot]com wrote:

Since I have been posting here, I top post 95% of the time. But I know
there are some here who are mightily upset by top posting. I don't expect
unanimity on this issue, but what's anybody's choice and your logic behind
it?

James
'top posting just seems more efficient'


Post at the bottom, or if there are several topics in a post you are replying
to, quote the relevant text then post your reply after each topic. Also, snip
any part of the post that is not relevant to your reply.
--
K6AZ WEB PAGES

http://www.k6az.com/web_pages.htm

Ken Knapp wrote:


I truly have no preference.

I top post. And I prefer to read top posting. If I need to see previous
posts in the message I scroll down. With my newsreader it works better for
me. But I don't turn it into a religion.

Ken

No preference at all. ;-)

Alan
'posting where I damn well please'


"James Higby" heezerbumfrool[at]hotmail[dot]com wrote in message
...
Since I have been posting here, I top post 95% of the time. But I know
there are some here who are mightily upset by top posting. I don't expect
unanimity on this issue, but what's anybody's choice and your logic behind
it?

James
'top posting just seems more efficient'

"Ken Knapp" wrote in
:

I top post. And I prefer to read top posting. If I need to see
previous posts in the message I scroll down. With my newsreader it
works better for me. But I don't turn it into a religion.

Ken

"James Higby" heezerbumfrool[at]hotmail[dot]com wrote in message
...
Since I have been posting here, I top post 95% of the time. But I
know there are some here who are mightily upset by top posting. I
don't expect unanimity on this issue, but what's anybody's choice and
your logic behind it?

James
'top posting just seems more efficient'



It only becomes really irritating when an article is heavily quoted from
numerous posters. Imagine a time when there was poor propagation and
retention of articles. I guess that would be today for AOL.

Trying to follow the thread of the conversation on an article after
numerous quoted follow-ups if 1/2 the posters top posted and the 1/2
bottom posted. You would be jumping from the bottom to the top of the
article trying to figure out the order of each follow-up.

Take this article, James posted, Ken top posted, I bottom posted. If we
continued on 10 or more times, quoting the entire article each time, with
a mix of bottom and top posts, it would be difficult to try and follow
the whole conversation by reading the last post.

Dan

"Jorg Lueke" wrote in
news
People who get upset about need to start taking some downers.


I didn't see a FS in your post.