Therein lies the problem: Lack of conformity resulting in confusion
when trying to (a) follow a thread and (b) decipher who a poster is
replying to. Bottom posting is traditionally the domain of
newsgroups/usenet, as it gives newcomers to the thread an easy to read,
chronological order of the text and means you don't have to keep
scrolling up and down trying to catch up. Top posting is traditionally
the domain of email, where the reader should already know what has
already been said because chances are they wrote it.

Rob wrote:
Ray wrote:

Or should I have put the line about middle posting here.

Top-posting is bad??? I've never heard that bit of "netiquette", but then
again, here and abpo are the only groups I frequent.


It can get confusing when people don't edit replies. The real confusion
with top posting comes when people try to respond to individual
statements by posting in the middle of quoted text.

If we're stuck with that, may I modify my request and suggest that folk take
a second and remove the 3rd- through 99th generations of quoted messages
before they post? It is a waste of time to scroll through 3 pages of quotes
to end up finding the gem of "I guess you're right, Fred. I'll try that."
or "Good one", so I end up NOT reading those messages at all, and probably
miss some good stuff.

That's the real bane of reading newsgroups. Solved very easily if
people remembered a little thing like SNIP. Of course, if people
can't be bothered scrolling down to the bottom of the post to produce
an easy to follow written discussion, it's hard to claim the moral
highground over people who can't be bothered deleting irrelevant quoted
text.



Me too

I always (almost always) post after the quoted message. I don't know
why, but I suspect I've been doing it for 15 years or so... I don't
think I have the mental agility to change now. Of course I always trim
as much as possible from the original message.

Sorry, I meant me too.
SNIP