My gawd, it's like ground hog day - how many times must we debate the stupid top post vs. bottom post nonsense? Back in the stone ages bottom posting was the norm due to the archiaic readers that everyone had to use. In the
21st century most people understand that top posting makes reading usenet much easier and that's why today top posting is the norm in most groups. End of story, let it go already...
formatting link
>
> Q8: When I start composing a response, my news-posting software always puts
> the insertion point above the quoted material. Doesn't that mean that "top
> posting" is the normal thing to do?
>
> A8: Not necessarily. Some people theorize that the designers of such
> software aren't very familiar with newsgroups and the conventions that have
> developed in them. Another possible explanation is that many programs use
> the same modules for composing e-mail and newsgroup messages, and sometimes
> when you're responding to an e-mail message, it may make sense to append the
> entire original message to the end. (The recipient may not have filed a copy
> of his/her original message, or it may not be as easy to get to as with a
> preceding newsgroup message.)
>
> With such software, a good strategy is to scroll downward, deleting excess
> text as you go. When you reach something that you want to comment on, put
> the insertion point after it and put your response (to that point) there. >
> Q9: But if I put my comments after the quoted text, won't people have to
> scroll all the way to the bottom to read them?
>
> A9: If you delete unnecessary quoted text, they shouldn't have to go far,
> not even a screenful. If you're responding to more than one point, you
> should intersperse your comments among sections of quoted text, in
> point-counterpoint style. Put a blank line between each section, to help the
> reader distinguish them.
>
> Besides, if you put your comments at the top, many people are going to
> scroll all the way to the bottom anyway, wondering whether you have anything
> more to say!
>
> Q10: Shouldn't we be paying attention to what a person says, rather than the
> cosmetic details of how it's said?
>
> A10: In newsgroups, as well as in real life, people form judgments about
> others, consciously or unconsciously, based on their appearance. In
> newsgroups, your words are the only "visible" evidence that people can judge
> you by. Spelling, grammar and formatting all contribute to people's
> impressions of you, and have at least some influence on how seriously other
> people will take you.
>
> Also, these considerations don't affect just the cosmetic appearance of what
> you write. They also affect how easy it is for people to read it, and
> understand the points that you're trying to make. In general, people don't
> like to be slowed down by scrolling through unnecessary material, or by
> having to stop and re-construct the logical sequence. It's good to organize
> and edit quoted words logically, for the same reason that it's good to
> organize and edit your own words logically.
>
> It basically comes down to a question of etiquette, if you view the
> fundamental principle of etiquette as "Thou shalt not make life
> unnecessarily difficult for other people," and factor in the number of
> people who may read your postings.
>
> Q11: Who made these rules, anyway? Who enforces them?
>
> A11: Nobody in particular made these "rules". They developed over the years,
> based on the experience of people who use newsgroups a lot, and who like to
> be able to read and participate in many discussions efficiently. Nobody
> really "enforces" them, in the sense that nobody can deny your posting
> privileges for violating them. (An exception might be if a newsgroup is
> moderated, and the group requires a particular quoting style.) The only
> sense in which they can be "enforced" is by peer pressure: that is, your
> readers may complain to you about your quoting style.
>
> In some newsgroups, if you quote the entire previous posting and put your
> comments above it, people are likely to "flame" you for "top posting" or
> posting "Jeopardy style" (after the U.S. TV game show in which contestants
> first see an answer and then have to come up with the corresponding
> question). This is more likely in groups that have a high concentration of
> long-time newsgroup users. They're not really doing this as a "power trip"
> (at least not usually); they're genuinely irritated at what they see as the
> waste of network and human resources that such postings entail.
>
>
>
> Came across these, and some other intersting articles.
>
> Bill was schooling me in beer, but failed to mention newsgroup
> rules/sensitivity (thanks buddy).
>
> Any additional info appreciated...
>
> Mike
>
>
>