Re: top posting?

I don't agree.
Yes.
Perhaps.

Now, it's your work to know to what part of your original mail I'm answering.

But, when you reply, the parts not relevant in the conversation should be erased.

On Mon, 6 May 2013 11:15:09 -0700
Craig James <cjames(at)emolecules(dot)com> wrote:

> Just out of curiousity, I see comments like this all the time:
>
> > (*please* stop top-posting).
>
> I've been participating in newsgroups since UUCP days, and I've never
> encountered a group before that encouraged bottom posting. Bottom posting
> has traditionally been considered rude -- it forces readers to scroll,
> often through pages and pages of text, to see a few lines of original
> material.
>
> The most efficient strategy, one that respects other members' time, is to
> briefly summarize your point at the TOP of a posting, then to *briefly*
> quote only the relevant parts of the post to which you are replying, and
> bottom-post after the quoted text. That lets your reader quickly see if
> it's relevant or not, and move on to the next post.
>
> Contributors in these newsgroups seem to think it's OK to quote five pages
> of someone else's response, then add one or two sentences at the bottom ...
> it's just laziness that forces readers to wade through the same stuff over
> and over in each thread.
>
> How did the Postgres newsgroups get started with this "only bottom post"
> idea?
>
> (I'm not trying to start a flame war, just genuinely curious.)
>
> Craig

--- ---
Eduardo Morras <emorrasg(at)yahoo(dot)es>