B
Bob Villa
Guest
On Dec 3, 1:28 am, "Wild_Bill" <wb_wildb...@XSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
Netiquette says "top posting" is rude! IRMC
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
P
(PeteCresswell)
Guest
Per Wild_Bill:
I bottom post because that seems tb what most people want.
But it seems to me like a holdover from the character/line-based
days where one could not easily jump pack to previous articles.
Given a choice between reading top-posted replies and
bottom-posted replies with indiscriminate quoting, I'll take the
top-posted replies any day. The ability to turn quotes on/off
mitigates bottom posting somewhat, but it's still more work to
read.
The ideal would seem tb inserting reply text under the relevant
quoted material and not quoting the whole history of the thread.
--
PeteCresswell
+1.Bottom posting isn't sensible, or I would have been doing it for the last
12-14 years.
So you see, this is my conventional method.
I bottom post because that seems tb what most people want.
But it seems to me like a holdover from the character/line-based
days where one could not easily jump pack to previous articles.
Given a choice between reading top-posted replies and
bottom-posted replies with indiscriminate quoting, I'll take the
top-posted replies any day. The ability to turn quotes on/off
mitigates bottom posting somewhat, but it's still more work to
read.
The ideal would seem tb inserting reply text under the relevant
quoted material and not quoting the whole history of the thread.
--
PeteCresswell
D
David Nebenzahl
Guest
On 12/3/2010 7:04 AM (PeteCresswell) spake thus:
bottom (or inter-) posting. Judicious trimming is a crucial part of it.
Not just lazily tacking your 2-line reply to the bottom of a 200-line
collection of previous posts and replies.
And yes, if one has multiple responses to a post, then posting the
replies directly under the relevant material is the way to go, as most
people seem to do here.
--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.
- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)
Further confirmation that good posting style depends on more than justPer Wild_Bill:
Bottom posting isn't sensible, or I would have been doing it for
the last 12-14 years. So you see, this is my conventional method.
+1.
I bottom post because that seems tb what most people want.
But it seems to me like a holdover from the character/line-based
days where one could not easily jump pack to previous articles.
Given a choice between reading top-posted replies and
bottom-posted replies with indiscriminate quoting, I'll take the
top-posted replies any day. The ability to turn quotes on/off
mitigates bottom posting somewhat, but it's still more work to
read.
The ideal would seem tb inserting reply text under the relevant
quoted material and not quoting the whole history of the thread.
bottom (or inter-) posting. Judicious trimming is a crucial part of it.
Not just lazily tacking your 2-line reply to the bottom of a 200-line
collection of previous posts and replies.
And yes, if one has multiple responses to a post, then posting the
replies directly under the relevant material is the way to go, as most
people seem to do here.
--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.
- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)