[SASAG] Even more init processes to learn...
marad at u.washington.edu
Thu Oct 5 18:34:16 PDT 2006
Over the years I've heard a number of people speak as if the idea that
"top-posting sucks" is obviously correct, but the conclusive proof is
lacking. Let's not have a point-counterpoint thread on this please, but
just for fun try being your own very sincere devil's advocate (try
hard!) and you'll surely come up with some good arguments in favor of
I find that for long threads, top-posting is probably not the best
route. I find that for short threads, especially in rapid e-mail
exchanges, top-posting makes for faster, better reading. Most of all I
find that vast numbers of people don't care one iota about where the
post is and never will, and it's hopelessly naive to think that some
sort of conversion to bottom-posting or any other method will happen
Sorry, I had to intentionally top-post as an illustration in this case.
Doesn't it make it more difficult for those who fastidiously bottom-post
to respond, as they can't help but spend the extra time cutting out all
that text below? This can be useful sometimes, exactly the desired result.
Rich Alderson wrote:
> Some top-poster wrote
>> Sounds like you propose a "cathedral" to me. Eric Raymond would not approve!
> ESR is a twit who never had an original thought in his life.
> Sometimes cathedrals are necessary, providing centers around which bazaars can
>> FWIW, I suspect Microsoft wholeheartedly approves of Unix variants
>> forking themselves infinitely...
> You *almost* got the verb right...
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
> Members mailing list
> Members at lists.sasag.org
More information about the Members