Why top-posting is bad

[Greg 'groggy' Lehey]

On Friday, 27 August 2004 at 17:10:38 +0530, Rahul Siddharthan wrote:
> Replying late because I've been moving.
>
> Greg 'groggy' Lehey said on Aug 22, 2004 at 11:25:58:
>> [Format recovered--see http://www.lemis.com/email/email-format.html]
>>
>> On Thursday, 19 August 2004 at  9:48:40 -0400, Rahul Siddharthan wrote:
>>> David Kelly said on Aug 19, 2004 at 08:21:05:
>> I've made the decision that I should not.   I reformat the messages
>> before replying to them (thus the message
>>
>>   [Format recovered--see http://www.lemis.com/email/email-format.html]
>>
>> at the top of such replies and
>
> First comment: you included this message at the top of this mail, but
> the only difference in format I see between your message and mine is
> the quoting ">" marks.  Why your "format recovered" message?

Finger trouble, probably.  I probably put it there to be able to copy
it above, then forgot it.

> Have you considered that some people, who don't see an obvious
> formatting problem with their mail, may consider this message
> offensive?

Yes.  Given the alternatives, I decided I would have to live with it.
I find badly formatted messages offensive, and I tell people so, but
they don't stop sending them because of that.

> (I don't, because I've corresponded with you before, but I can see
> that people might, and FreeBSD already has a sufficient reputation
> for offensive members.)  Or, if there was indeed some subtle
> formatting problem in my message that you've corrected, shouldn't
> you be polite enough to tell me what it is?

Yes, I normally do.  That's why I suspect it was an error on my part
this time.

>>   When replying to this message, please take care not to mutilate the
>>   original text.
>>   For more information, see http://www.lemis.com/email.html
>>
>> at the bottom).  This may take some time, but at least I can then
>> understand what's going on (most of the time; some messages leave me
>> mystified), and the result is legible.
>
> I get plenty of messages that are top-posted continuously all the way
> for 10 generations.  I see no problem in following the context.

Except that I refuse to send an incorrectly sequenced message.

> I can even appreciate that, if the quoted messages are a few weeks
> or months old, (a) it is better to quote them fully rather than
> partially or not at all,

Not necessarily.  It depends on the context.

> (b) it is better to quote them at the bottom and say what you want
> to say on the top.

That's seldom a good option.

> I agree this does not apply to FreeBSD lists, but most people may
> not realise that unless it's (politely) explained to them.  Anyway,
> top-posting isn't unheard-of in FreeBSDland either: I've seen JKH
> and Scott Long do it, among others.

Yes.  I think they should know better.

>> better.  But sometimes it's worth expressing the fact that people are
>> more likely to get (voluntary) answers if they express themselves
>> well; and that includes the presentation of their text.
>
> That can be explained politely, rather than saying "Top-posters won't
> be honoured with a reply".

Agreed.  That wasn't my statement.  I try to avoid the terms "top
posting" and "bottom posting", because they're misleading.

Greg
--
Note: I discard all HTML mail unseen.
Finger grog at FreeBSD.org for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-chat/attachments/20040828/2f4e4d6b/attachment.bin