top posting - a genuine question

Hi

This is a genuine question, so all you flamers who like to kick anything
that moves, please don't respond.

I'm aware of the protocol of posting a reply at the bottom of the previous
post, or cropped previous post, but I have to say I find it intensely
irritating scrolling down through a series of messages (that if i've been
following the thread i've already read) that haven't been cropped just to
find a 'one line response' or a flame or BS. Does this annoy anyone else?

What is the harm with top posting? Surely it's quicker to read and if you
want the background you can do the scrolling thing.

Sorry it's off topic, it's been on my mind for years.

Apologies for the heresy of the question, I will birch branch myself later.

Mike

"Mike Mc" wrote in message
but I have to say I find
it intensely irritating scrolling down through a series of messages
(that if i've been following the thread i've already read) that
haven't been cropped just to find a 'one line response' or a flame
or BS. Does this annoy anyone else?

Yes. Top posting is fine by me, or replying on the first page so that the
person doesn't have to scroll. IME some newsgroups are OK with top-posting,
others absolutely hate it like it's a virus or something.

To be honest, if someone gets upset with where you write your comments
relative to someone elses then you have to ask what else do they have in
their life! Do they *really* read through all the previous posts every time
they read a new message? I think not.

Just take it easy and make sure you snip out as much as you can or top post!

"Mike Mc" wrote in message
but I have to say I find
it intensely irritating scrolling down through a series of messages
(that if i've been following the thread i've already read) that
haven't been cropped just to find a 'one line response' or a flame
or BS. Does this annoy anyone else?

Yes. Top posting is fine by me, or replying on the first page so that the
person doesn't have to scroll. IME some newsgroups are OK with top-posting,
others absolutely hate it like it's a virus or something.

To be honest, if someone gets upset with where you write your comments
relative to someone elses then you have to ask what else do they have in
their life! Do they *really* read through all the previous posts every time
they read a new message? I think not.

Just take it easy and make sure you snip out as much as you can or top post!

"Mike Mc" wrote in message
...
SNIP
What is the harm with top posting? Surely it's quicker to read and if you
want the background you can do the scrolling thing.

http://member.newsguy.com/~schramm/nquote.html#Q7
http://www.fscked.co.uk/writing/top-posting-cuss.html
http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/quote.html

Bart

What is the harm with top posting?

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?
--
Michael



I'll assume you're kidding, so I'll smile.

If not, then it's nonsense. People don't need to retain the entire message. I
think top posting is acceptable, even good if it makes reading easier. I think
posters should use their discretion and judgement. I also believe people only
need to quote what is relevant, and not pile up subquoted post after quoted
post to retain "the order in which people normally read text". In fact, you
know what really annoys me? when people don't snip and just quote several
posts' worth of text and i'd have to scroll all the way down for it. Lately
I've been skipping such posts. If i have to click google's "read the rest of
this message..." you can be almost sure i'll be skipping it.

What is the harm with top posting?

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?
--
Michael



I'll assume you're kidding, so I'll smile.

If not, then it's nonsense. People don't need to retain the entire message. I
think top posting is acceptable, even good if it makes reading easier. I think
posters should use their discretion and judgement. I also believe people only
need to quote what is relevant, and not pile up subquoted post after quoted
post to retain "the order in which people normally read text". In fact, you
know what really annoys me? when people don't snip and just quote several
posts' worth of text and i'd have to scroll all the way down for it. Lately
I've been skipping such posts. If i have to click google's "read the rest of
this message..." you can be almost sure i'll be skipping it.

"Michael" wrote in message

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 23:11:10 GMT, "Mike Mc"
, a presumably most groovy dude, asked
the following in rec.photo.digital:

What is the harm with top posting?

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read
text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?

To be fair you actually read it in the opposite order if you read your posts
in chronological order like most people do. IMO it is far better than
reading it in this order:

Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?

Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?
A: Top-posting.

Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?
A: Top-posting.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?
A: Top-posting.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read

"Michael" wrote in message

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 23:11:10 GMT, "Mike Mc"
, a presumably most groovy dude, asked
the following in rec.photo.digital:

What is the harm with top posting?

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read
text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?

To be fair you actually read it in the opposite order if you read your posts
in chronological order like most people do. IMO it is far better than
reading it in this order:

Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?

Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?
A: Top-posting.

Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?
A: Top-posting.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?
A: Top-posting.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read

On 2004-07-16, Mike Mc wrote:
What is the harm with top posting? Surely it's quicker to read and if you
want the background you can do the scrolling thing.

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

--
--Tim Smith

In article ,
Mike Mc wrote:

[...] I find it intensely
irritating scrolling down through a series of messages (that if i've been
following the thread i've already read) that haven't been cropped just to
find a 'one line response' or a flame or BS. Does this annoy anyone else?

Yes, it annoys me even more than reading things out of sequence.
Properly trimming quoted material, so that it includes only the material
that is directly relevant to what you're writing, is just as important in
writing an easily-readable posting, as is arranging the material so it
reads in logical sequence.

What is the harm with top posting? Surely it's quicker to read

because the reader can more easily skip over irrelevant material which
shouldn't have been there in the first place

and if you
want the background you can do the scrolling thing.

If the reader wants more background besides properly-quoted material,
he/she can call up the previous posting from his/her server (I can do it
with a single keypress in my newsreader). If it's expired, use Google.

The following example (admittedly contrived) illustrates clearly, I hope,
why many people hate top-posting. Which of the following versions would
*you* rather read?

Newsgroups: alt.tv.gilligans-island
From: GQuest Fan
Subject: Gilligan's Island Theme Song

Those *poor* people.

Nit Picker wrote:
And the Howells and Ginger were described, not named.

Trivia Wiz wrote:
They weren't mentioned until the second season.

Palm Guy wrote:
What about Mary Ann and the Professor?

Island Fan wrote:
Gilligan, Skipper, the Howells, and Ginger.

Trivia Wiz wrote
Who is named in the original theme song of Gilligan's
Island?

or this?

Newsgroups: alt.tv.gilligans-island
From: GQuest Fan
Subject: Gilligan's Island Theme Song

Nit Picker wrote:
Trivia Wiz wrote
Palm Guy wrote:
Island Fan wrote:
Trivia Wiz wrote
Who is named in the original theme song of Gilligan's
Island?

Gilligan, Skipper, the Howells, and Ginger.

What about Mary Ann and the Professor?

They weren't mentioned until the second season.

And the Howells and Ginger were described, not named.

Those *poor* people.

(from http://members.fortunecity.com/nnqweb/nquote.html)

For a simple question and answer that doesn't lead to an extended
discussion, it actually doesn't matter much to me which way the material
is arranged. But when the response addresses multiple points in the
original posting, or when it's part of a chain of discussion, I much
prefer to have everything in readable sequence, with unnecessary material
removed.

--
Jon Bell Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA