On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 8:39 PM, Bill Andersen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:andersen@mwdental.com">andersen@mwdental.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
In the "order in which people normally read text" they don't<br>
repeat the entire conversation from the beginning each time<br>
a question is asked either... Bottom posting is just as bad!<br>
<br>
./bill<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br>Posting either way can be good, bad, or ugly. The key is consistency.<br>
<br>
What I find most annoying is a mix of top and bottom posting within a
single mailing list or especially withing a single thread. Mailing
lists in general have adopted the old Usenet convention of bottom posting as a
standard.<br><br>The Usenet idea, as I understand it, is that you never knew
at what point someone would begin reading a thread. Slow servers,
missed messages, and limited retention policies meant that a reader might not see the beginning
of a thread or could miss parts of a thread. If you always bottom post, and snip accordingly, then the
topic, context, and conversation happen in natural top to bottom order even if parts or history is missed.<br>
<br>
I personally prefer top posting in direct emails where the context of the conversation is already in my mind. For mailing lists
and Usenet I prefer to bottom post so that it remains consistent and because they are often archived publicly. I appreciate an archive where I can follow the flow of conversation from top to bottom and know that I have reached a conclusion of discussion.<br>
<br>
Sadly the new standard seems to be "do whatever you want"
which includes breaking the existing convention on an already started
thread such that parts are top posted, parts are bottom posted, and none of the conversation is snipped.<br><br>-Justin<br>