Top-quoting defined [was: namespace dictionaries ok?]

[Grant Edwards]

On 2005-10-26, Duncan Booth <duncan.booth at invalid.invalid> wrote:
> James Stroud wrote:
>> On Tuesday 25 October 2005 00:31, Duncan Booth wrote:
>>> P.S. James, *please* could you avoid top-quoting
>> 
>> Were it not for Steve Holden's providing me with a link off the list,
>> I would have never known to what it is you are referring. I have read
>> some relevant literature to find that this is more widely known as
>> "top-posting". I'll go with majority rules here, but I would like to
>> say that my lack of "netiquette" in this matter comes from
>> practicality and not malice.
>
> No, I didn't think it was malice which is why I just added what I 
> considered to be a polite request at the end of my message. I assumed that 
> most people either knew the phrase or could find out in a few seconds using 
> Google so there wasn't much point in rehashing the arguments. Probably I 
> should have equally lambasted Ron for the heinous crime of bottom-quoting. 
>
> In general, there are three ways to quote a message: top-quoting, which 
> forces people to read the message out of order;

Uh, no.  Isn't what we're doing here top-quoting?  The quoted
stuff is at the top. Everything is in chronological order.  I
think what you're referring to is "top-posting".

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  ... If I had heart
                                  at               failure right now,
                               visi.com            I couldn't be a more
                                                   fortunate man!!