Jane Ransom pushed briefly to the front of the
queue on Sat, 13 Sep 2003 13:06:12 +0100, and nailed this to the shed
door:

^ In article , shannie
^ writes

^ That being said, the abc actually doesn't refer to top or bottom posting as
^ far as I can see, just to the nonposting of binaries and editing down
^ messages to keep them concise.
^
^ It says this:

^ (2) When you are replying to a message, it's a good idea to edit down
^ your quotes (snipping) to the point(s) that you are actually addressing,
^ but be sure that you have kept enough in to make it intelligible!
^
^ Ok, maybe it is not entirely clear so perhaps we should make it a little
^ more explicit.

It /is/ entirely clear, and it also entirely fails to mention the
subject of top vs bottom posting. On the other hand, that subject
transcends specific newsgroups and is adequately covered in other
Usenet FAQs - but then, how many people coming to newsgroups for the
first time even realise that Usenet = newsgroups? I have received
blank looks from PC support at work before now when I have used the
term expecting them to be familiar with it. Enough said.

Someone else in this thread said that top posting was "common sense".
FWIW, I happen to agree with that, witness the fact that newbies
almost invariably do it - and in the absence of anything better to go
on, people are going to go on common sense. That's how I started.
Needless to say it wasn't long before I got the inevitable rebukes.
And needless to say, I defended common sense, for a while. But as I
spent more time on Usenet, I came to agree with the received wisdom,
because I invariably found that posts structured that way were easier
to follow, and to follow up. I have been having the argument with one
of my oldest friends (not a Usenet user) for a couple of years now,
because I've carried the practice of bottom-posting over into email
and he invariably cracks up about it.

Actually, the whole argument is a little futile, because as someone
else pointed out, following up is often not as simple as plonking a
single contribution at the start or the end. Interspersing a series of
contributions through a posting is often indicated (although this
tends to be a sterile practice inasmuch as it's nearly impossible to
follow up again except by snipping all but one point), but inasmuch as
doing this can only sensibly be done in a bottom-posting style (it's
just like a transcribed conversation), top-posting is still
contra-indicated.

As far as I can see, just about every argument pro and contra both
ways of doing things have been eloquently put in this thread, and I've
picked up one or two of them explicitly again, but I'd be remiss if I
didn't pick up the last one that I have mentioned yet, the most
important one of all:

"If I can't see the start of a reply on the screen then I just ignore
the post and go on to the next one."

Absolutely what she said (having just enlarged his own screen a little
to make sure that the start of his reply was visible). Rather a top
poster who's judicious with the scissors than a bottom-posting
ten-levels-deep three-pages-of-shite "me-too" merchant.

There. If that's not sitting on the (garden) fence par excellence, I
don't know what is.

Andy

--
sparge at globalnet point co point uk

Give me a nice smooth, peaty island malt any day.
Tomorrow would do nicely.
Bob Goddard, uk.rec.sheddizen