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

[Duncan Booth]

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; bottom-quoting which is 
nearly as bad because it hides the new comments; and proper quoting in 
context where you trim the message and put specific points under brief bits 
of context.

The thread in question had a horrific mix of top and bottom quoting, so 
that when I tried to reply at what I thought was an appropriate point in 
the thread (<pYj7f.213077$p_1.134475 at tornado.tampabay.rr.com>) I think the 
order it went was something like:

> quote from James (4)
comment from Ron (5)
>>> quote from James (2)
>> comment from Ron (3)
>>> quote from James (2)
>>>> quote from Ron (1)

I spent a while trying to trim that down to relevant context, and in 
particular trying to work out in what order the original statements had 
been made. In the end I gave up and replied to an earlier message which was 
more easily trimmable.

> Also, here is a well written synopsis of the arguments in 
> favor of top-posting and they may even be strong enough to legitimize the 
> practice:

The arguments are mostly sound, but I would draw slightly different 
conclusions:

Follow the conventions of the particular newsgroup or mailing list, but 
with that in mind, for all replies, Middle Post. Respond to each point in 
turn with lots of snipping.

He's right though, its not a religious issue.