[nylug-talk] Re: Top-Posting

[George Bourozikas]

On Thursday 30 November 2006 13:53, Allen Shaw wrote:
> Ron Guerin wrote:
> >Top-posting will however cause no small number of people to not want to
> >devote time to replying.
>
> I often miss the obvious, so please don't mind if I ask: Why is it so
> much more difficult or more unpleasant to reply to a top-posted message?

It's sacrilegious, that's why.  No, seriously: all arguments against top 
posting make sense if you are trying to understand a thread by reading a 
single message; if you are one of the participants you probably don't need to 
go back and read what you said, so top-posting actually makes sense.  Plus I 
don't find the paradigm flip-flop all that painful that it would merit 
1,003,000 (top posting) + 485,000 (top-posting) Google hits.  And I am about 
to add to that as soon as I hit "send."

I started using e-mail in 1982 when top posting was a capital offense (The 
quartered top posters!  The heads on stakes!  The tar and feathers!  The 
horror!  The horror!) and I'd probably lose my sleep for days if I ever top 
posted but I have to admit that I've seen perfectly meaningful exchanges in 
top posting style.  Please don't tell anyone that I said that.  

[Question for "The Ethicist:" what do you do if you are the 5th interlocutor 
in a top-posted thread?  Do you 

(a) spend quality time in your editor of choice - I am not opening _that_ can 
of worms, no sir - switching things around, 

(b) do the "right thing" and start a flame war or 

(c) top post yourself and go practice some self-flagelation, like installing 
PHP5 in Apache 2, to borrow from another thread?]

From a practical standpoint though, Ron is right.  There are people who just 
plain won't respond to your message if you top post, as a matter of 
principle.  Many of them tend to be talented at what they do and may just 
save your day if they choose to respond.

Caveat emptor.

--george