Top posting

[Tim]

On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 00:35 -0700, Julius Smith wrote:

> * Top posting is more efficient for all if the context is clear

Oh rubbish, it's just the easiest solution for the laziest.  Nothing to
do with "efficiency."

> * Top posting makes it easier to respond to only one point of many

Doesn't make it clear what you're responding to.  Snipping and only
quoting what you're responding to, next to it, makes it clear.

> * For the blind listening to text-to-speech reading of the page,
> top-posting is the only way to go

I've heard blind friends say that's nonsense.  Of all people, having to
listen to something out of sequence, trying to make sense of it, is far
harder than what everyone else has to put up with trying to read it.

> * I vote for top-posting, including quoted snippets above when needed
> to set context ("partial interleaved posting", really).  There are
> good examples of this earlier in this thread.

I vote that you don't repeat the message.  If you're going to
intersperse replies, then do so.  Seeing someone fullquote a message,
then quote bits of it in their replies, has to be the stupidest way I've
ever seen people quote.  It's entirely unnecessary.

> * I have no problem with full quoted blather after the post as long as
> I don't have to read it.

I do.  It wastes my bandwidth and storage space, and everyone else's,
and the server that provides you with this mailing list.  A thread with
several messages, and some are lengthy, wastes an enormous amount, as it
all snowballs.

-- 
[tim at localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686

Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.  I
read messages from the public lists.