Sun Apr 24 04:02:56 NZST 2005
* Bnonn <bnonn@o...> [2005-04-08 02:00]:
> Could someone explain why top-posting is bad?
A late note, since I didn’t see this argument after catching up
with the list fully:
A: Because it reverses the natural flow of text.
Q: Why is top-posting bad?
The only purpose of quotation is to let a reader follow a message
when they didn’t read the preceding message, or did so a long
time ago (as is the case with this mail).
Reconstructing the context by reading a message quotation-wise
bottom-up (while reading top-to-bottom inside the quotations, of
course) is annoying.
Note that top-posting is tolerable, even if suboptimal, as long
as it is consistent. What is a complete faux-pas is mixing
styles. The result is an unreadable spaghetti mess. Don’t
top-post in reply to a message with interleaved quotes. Don’t
interleave your reply into top-posted quotation. Stick with the
existing style or lose the quotation.
The bottom line is courtesy and respect towards your readers.
 Incidentally, it very much resembles reading GOTO-heavy code.
This is no coincidence: human brains are miserable at dealing
with temporal as opposed to spatial arrangements.
“If you can’t laugh at yourself, you don’t take life seriously enough.”
More information about the wlug
NOTICE: This is an archive of a public mailing list. The University of Waikato is not responsible for its contents.