Top posting

[Stef Mientki]

I agree that top posting on a message like this is not very convenient,
but for simple messages ...

D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:37:17 +0100
> Stef Mientki <stef.mientki at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>>> FYI, top posts are much harder to read and to reply to than if you edit
>>> the message to which you are replying and add your new content interleaved
>>>   
>>>       
>> ??? I read that before, but I can't understand it.
>>     
>
> It is very simple.  The critical part above is "...edit the
> message..."  If you leave a 200 line message in your reply to discuss
> three lines then it won't matter whether you top post or bottom post.
> You still make it difficult for others to read your posting.
>
>   
I think not the way in which the result is reached, but the result 
itself is important,
and i like to get to the result as fast as possible.
That's why in simple messages, I find top posting is more convenient.
Version history is often (always?) written in reversed chronological order,
you're only interested in the few last ones.
>> I use Thunderbird, which opens every message at the top,
>> so top posting is the best readable for me,
>>     
>
> Only if the previous poster didn't trim their text.  Notice how I have
> removed everything here that I am not replying to.  I doubt very much
> if you have to scroll down to start reading my response.  You can also
> tell at a glance that this is not a "me too" response.
>   
Trimming is very useful and it's done too little.
If you read mail by gmail (which I also do),
you would love that everyone top posts (as you very fast open/close 
messages and see the top of the messages without scrolling)

>   
>> I don't have to scroll (assuming that I know from previous readings the 
>> content of the previous message).
>>     
>
> But how do you know what part of the message is being replied to?
>   
simple messages, 1 issue ?
>   
>> Replying can be preset in any reader I know just as you like, bottom or top.
>> So I guess there must be another reason, why some (or maybe even 
>> everyone except me)  don't prefer top posting.
>>     
>
> Ah, that makes sense.
> Because it is not the usual way we read the flow of a conversation.
> What is so bad about top posting?
>
> How long did you waste on the above exchange before reversing the lines
> in your head?
>   
I do it already more than 10 years, and I mean that !!
When I write a report, almost nobody is interested in all 
investigations, arguments,
most are only interested in the conclusion and is therefor always on top.
By not top-posting on simple messages,
we stick to the middle ages and prevent development of new ideas.
> The bottom line is that thousands of people are reading your reply but
> only one (you) is writing it.  It just makes sense for you to take an
> extra ten seconds to save thousands of people two seconds reading it.
> It is polite and considerate to others.  If everyone did the same you
> would also save because you read many more posts than you write.
>
>   
If it's considered polite, I will try to best next time I post to this 
group.
But I'm not convinced that it saves time for anyone.

btw, it's also polite (in some cultures) to sign your messages ;-)

( I don't want to start a flame war, so this is my last response to this 
thread)

cheers,
Stef Mientki