The problem with top-posting is not so much the top-posting itself, it is what it generally goes along with: copying the entire text of the article being replied to, and not being specific about what you're replying to.
Those are the problems, then, not whether the reply went above or below the quoted text.
Generally, one should be including only enough context to make it obvious what's being answered.
-Matt
Well, sure (at least in mailing list or forum situations where people can be assumed to be following a thread, or to go back to see what was being referred to).
To tell the truth, I hardly ever notice whether people have top- posted or bottom-posted.
As long as it's present as a matter of preference, and the emphasis is put on being helpful to readers, I don't have any issues.
What I object to is the frequent _flaming_ of people for top-posting, and to the inaccurate claim that top-posting is considered a major, important faux pas in all Internet discussions at all times. Top- posting is like splitting an infinitive. Some people hate it, and some of the people who hate it can give you good reasons, but it's a matter of taste and style, not a universally accepted or important rule of grammar.
-- Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith@verizon.net "Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print! Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
On 12/09/05, Daniel P. B. Smith dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
What I object to is the frequent _flaming_ of people for top-posting, and to the inaccurate claim that top-posting is considered a major, important faux pas in all Internet discussions at all times.
Um... surely the fact that people are frequently flamed for it might just indicate that, frequently, people consider it a major faux pas? ;-)
[Random factoid: first usenet citations I can find are just on eight years ago. Which surprises me; I'm sure I remember it around when I turned up. OTOH, they reference a pre-existing culture - "You can get in a lot of trouble in the Netscape newsgroups for 'Top Posting'." - so meh.)
"Andrew Gray" shimgray@gmail.com wrote in message news:f3fedb0d05091119023d54b0e3@mail.gmail.com... On 12/09/05, Daniel P. B. Smith dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
What I object to is the frequent _flaming_ of people for top-posting, and to the inaccurate claim that top-posting is considered a major, important faux pas in all Internet discussions at all times.
[Random factoid: first usenet citations I can find are just on eight years ago. Which surprises me; I'm sure I remember it around when I turned up. OTOH, they reference a pre-existing culture - "You can get in a lot of trouble in the Netscape newsgroups for 'Top Posting'." - so meh.)
Off the top of my head, ISTR this was not unconnected with the fact that by default, most Microsoft products implement the "Reply" function in such a way as to encourage top-posting. It was often immediately obvious that a user was using a vanilla Microsoft product without having taken the slightest effort to research the proper netiquette, and was as much of a red flag to certain types of user as an AOL address. Many newbies were bitten in those days :-)
IOW this anti-top-posting was in some ways as much "anti-Microsoft" as anything else. The fact that you are referencing Netscape groups as a source of early information suggests that my memory for this might not be as faulty as I feared :-)
HTH HAND
Phil Boswell wrote:
"Andrew Gray" shimgray@gmail.com wrote in message news:f3fedb0d05091119023d54b0e3@mail.gmail.com... On 12/09/05, Daniel P. B. Smith dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
What I object to is the frequent _flaming_ of people for top-posting, and to the inaccurate claim that top-posting is considered a major, important faux pas in all Internet discussions at all times.
[Random factoid: first usenet citations I can find are just on eight years ago. Which surprises me; I'm sure I remember it around when I turned up. OTOH, they reference a pre-existing culture - "You can get in a lot of trouble in the Netscape newsgroups for 'Top Posting'." - so meh.)
Off the top of my head, ISTR this was not unconnected with the fact that by default, most Microsoft products implement the "Reply" function in such a way as to encourage top-posting. It was often immediately obvious that a user was using a vanilla Microsoft product without having taken the slightest effort to research the proper netiquette, and was as much of a red flag to certain types of user as an AOL address. Many newbies were bitten in those days :-)
IOW this anti-top-posting was in some ways as much "anti-Microsoft" as anything else. The fact that you are referencing Netscape groups as a source of early information suggests that my memory for this might not be as faulty as I feared :-)
Google is the new Microsoft... Hotmail is the new AOL...
Further posts on this topic to flamewars-l@wikimedia.org, please ;)