On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Xenos wrote:
[re: top-posting]
I don't know what that means. I just hit reply...
Here's a modern classic of Usenet prose for you,
originally posted in comp.lang.c by Chris Torek.
---------
Right.
:So that's why you say not to top-post!
::It is helpful to say, in effect, "you said X; my answer is Y."
::If you edit the message to which you are replying to quote just
::the "X" part, then give your answer "Y", everything is pretty
::clear even if earlier versions are missing. Your own article
::will stand by itself. This convention has been developed over
::more than two decades, and it works well; longtime USENET readers
::seem to prefer it on average.
:::Can you put it all together for me now?
::::There are a few problems with this theory. USENET messages have
::::a tendency to get lost or mangled or even simply forgotten, so in
::::fact, one often *does* have to page down to read the entire quoted
::::text, then page back up to find the reply. Moreover, if the
::::quoted text is long -- as it often is -- it can be difficult even
::::to tell which part you MEANT to reply to.
:::::What's so bad about that? Especially since you can stop reading
:::::as soon as you have seen the part you already saw!
::::::Since top-posters only have to write their reply, then include
::::::the original message, they tend not to edit down the original
::::::message.
:::::::Well, I have an answer to that, but OK: what is the second?
::::::::It makes conversations come out upside down. The TV game
::::::::show "Jeopardy" is one of the few places the answer should
::::::::appear before the question.
:::::::::What is the first?
::::::::::I can give you two reasons.
:::::::::::Why is this bad?
::::::::::::Thi s is the practice of writing your reply, then
::::::::::::inc luding the original message below (often the whole
::::::::::::thi ng, instead of just the part you are replying to).
:::::::::::::Wh at do you mean "top-post"?
::::::::::::::P lease do not "top-post".
