[PLUG] top posting vs. bottom posting

Chris Healy galamar at creative-designs-ltd.com
Tue Nov 4 18:24:02 UTC 2003


> From: Rich Shepard
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Chris Healy wrote:
> > My favorite is the third, and mostly discussed, method.  Breaking
the
> > quoted text into logical bits and responding to each.  However this
> > method is best used with long, multipart posts.
> 
>   What's wrong with this for every message, in all mail lists? It's
what
> I've always done (from the days of BBS messages to current use of the
> 'Net).
> It makes sense.

As I said in my first post, I prefer the split/embedded method also. It
works very well.  It's just not particle in _all_ situations.
 
For the purposes of example, let's pretend my above paragraph was all I
had said.  

Where would you split my message to embed your response?  

Most likely you wouldn't have. It would have become a bottom post
response.  As well, my response (this response) would have been bottom
posted also.

-- Example ends here, regular responding continues --

> > Bottom posting is good in environments, such as this list, where
many
> > threads of conversation are taking place simultaneously.  One
sometimes
> > needs a reminder of what's going on in that particular discussion.
> 
>   As you can see, there's better communications when your replies are
> specific to the part of the message to which they apply.

Once again, I agree.

> > Top posting is handy in situations where there is only a few
discussions
> > occurring, and the messages are relatively short.  Situations where
> > there's really no need to reread what has already been said, except
just
> > to know which message it was in response to.  In all fairness, I am
a
> > member of several mailing lists that specifically request top
posting.
> > And it works very well in those places.
> 
>   How about those winduhs users (e.g., users of AOL) who "top post"
> because
> none of the original message is included in the response? Try figuring
out
> what's going on when you sent your message a day or so ago.

Taking my original post as an example.  I was not replying to anything
specific, just the conversation as a whole.  So I choose not to quote
anything.  And in this case it worked.  The conversation is fresh, and
no one needed a reminder.  But as you said, what if it had been a couple
days? Top posting may have been more appropriate.

>   Or, those who interweave their reply with your message. I have a
> professional colleague who manages to do this with his Lookout!
Express
> MUA. It takes a _long_ time to figure out where his text is embedded.

I hear you there! *Nods*

>   If folks were to think of how their reply is perceived by the
> recipient(s) and they're interested in clearly and efficiently 
> communicating, they'd pay attention to what they're doing. 

True.

> I think that would happen some time after
> folks use turn signals when changing lanes and don't cut off other
drivers
> as they chat on their phones. :-) In other words, "Ha! Don't hold your
> breath, Richard".

<LOL> Also very true ;) On both counts.

-- Chris Healy





More information about the PLUG mailing list