On Thursday 09 of June 2005 23:06, Graham Smith wrote: [...] > I understand the reasons why bottom posting is supposed to be better but > if I am following the thread, which is normally the case if I'm actually > reading it, then I find it quicker to read just the top section of each > post rather than having to scroll down past everything I've already > read. There isn't a problem with context because I can remember that
That's why people also should cut unnecessary pieces. And not everybody have to remember what the thread was about. Or reads every mail in thread. It's easier to "catch-up" the subject when you have all needed information in order. I saw few situations where topposting wasn't so bad (like when boss mails to you 'one-way message' such as "FIX THIS! NOW!!!"), but it was never better solution than bottom posting. It was only more simple (to click reply in Outlook is more simple than to click reply in Outlook and go to the bottom of the mail). [...] > PS Have you noticed that there aren't many people who are top posting > zealots? I wonder why. Maybe tops posters are just more relaxed and > chilled out people. :o) Dunno. ;-) maybe they don't see any difference. And remember: A: Like that. Q: How? A: Because it reverses the usual way we read information. Q: Why topposting is bad? Regards, -- Lech Karol Pawłaszek <ike> "You will never see me fall from grace..." [KoRn]
