A plea to the persistent top posters.

[jdow]

From: "nosp" <nosp at xades.com>

> On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 12:59, ne... wrote:
> > Could you please, please configure your e-mail clients
> > to not top post.
> 
> Please let's not start a war.  Just deal with what people use unless
> it's horribly wrong and could use correction -- then do it as a reply to
> the offending post.  At the least a link to an authoritative netiquette
> site would justify your request.  I did a quick google search and
> quickly found that business users / newer internet users are thought to
> be the typical top-posters (as an old internet user and a business user,
> I can corroborate that).
> 
> Below are some discussions I found.  Bottom line: bottom-posting is the
> norm for usenet news and should be the default (but not only) option for
> geek email.
> 
> [Authoritative] Jargon Dictionary:
> http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/top-post.html (note justifications are
> mostly outdated)
> 
> [Authoritative] Dan's Mail Format Site:
> http://mailformat.dan.info/quoting/
> 
> Origin of bottom-posting and anti-top-posters on Usenet:
> http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/quote.html
> 
> Slighty-pro top-posting rant: http://www.lionsgrove.com/topposting.html
> 
> Slightly-anti top-posting rant:
> http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/gey_stv0.htm
> 
> Mozilla to allow (not default) top-posting & why:
> http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62429#c77
> 
> Blind usenet readers don't like top-posting:
> http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/gey_chr0.htm
> 
> Martin
> 
> PS--for the record, I'm all for top-posting on small threads like this
> one.  rg's hopefully ironic reply to your post was a perfect example.

Your approach is best. A proper geek is NOT an anal retentive like a
bean counter or bureaucrat.

{^_-}