Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

jplindstrom (594)

jplindstrom
  (email not shown publicly)

Journal of jplindstrom (594)

Wednesday February 11, 2004
03:08 PM

On e-mail

[ #17363 ]

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.

Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

A: Top-posting.

Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

- unknown

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • not absolute (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jmm (276) <johnNO@SPAMperlwolf.com> on 2004.02.11 16:16 (#28336) Journal
    I can't accept "top posting is evil" as an absolute dictum.

    I generally classify replies into two categories. One has information related to many portions of the original - that is best written by interleaving the new information with the original (clearly quoted of course).

    The other adds a small single item to an ongoing discussion - and that is best done with inserting the new information at the top, since the readers are familiar with the previous message(s) of the discussion and do not need to read them again. The previous text is included so that readers can refresh their memory if they need an exact detail from the preceeding discussion, or if they come back to the message after a long delay. But the ongoing immediate discussion is best served by keeping the stuff that the readers NEED to see at the top so they can conveniently skip the rest that they already know.

    • I disagree.

      > I can't accept "top posting is evil" as an absolute dictum.

      > I generally classify replies into two categories. One has information related to many > portions of the original - that is best written by interleaving the new >information with the original (clearly quoted of course).

      > The other adds a small single item to an ongoing discussion - and that is best done > with inserting the new information at the top, since the readers are familiar > with the previous message(s)
      • Me too.

        > I disagree.
        >
        > > I can't accept "top posting is evil" as an absolute dictum.
        >
        > > I generally classify replies into two categories. One has
        > > information related to many > portions of the original - that
        > > is best written by interleaving the new >information with the
        > > original (clearly quoted of course).
        >
        > > The other adds a small single item to an ongoing discussion -
        > > and that is best done > with inserting the new information at