[WikiEN-l] Re: Top-posting

[Daniel P. B. Smith]

> 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 at 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/