If I understand this correctly then your previous messages was a 'top post',
as is the one I'm sending right now. Is that correct?

Personally I see absolutely nothing wrong with this type of posting as 1)
the reader does not have to scroll through god knows how much text to read
the new reply that he clicked on, and 2) if they failed to read the
original or have forgotten it, they can then scroll down to catch up.

What seems particularly annoying to me is when people post the original at
the top of their reply and I have to scroll through all that just to get to
their response. If the original was only a line or two, it's no big deal,
but often it goes on and on and it gets tiresome and annoying to have to
scroll through it over and over with each response.

There are a few names that I recognize on this board who are notorious for
doing this and when I recognize them, I simply mark them as read and move
right past them without reading. I'm curious why people think this is
necessary or helpful. Is it something with the way that some readers are set
up?

I have read this newsgroup for many years and I cant recall ever forgetting
what a topic was about once I've seen the topic. I suppose if I did forget,
all I'd have to do is go back to the original and read it (once) to refresh
my memory, not each time someone replies.

I'll stick to this type of posting unless someone can explain why it's
better to repost the entire message at the top of my reply.

PJ


============================================
Here's to the duck who swam a lake and never lost a feather,
May sometime another year, we all be back together.
JJW
============================================


"Jose" wrote in message
om...
Top posting is not inherently enefarious, but like any tool, it can be
used for good or for evil. In cases where the response requires context, it
is
good to give a hint of the context before the reply by quoting a well
selected part of the original post, and posting your reply below. Often the
post has already been read (though forgotten) by the reader, but often it
has not yet reached the reader and the context is essential or your own
point gets lost.

However, if your post stands on its own even in the absence of context,
then it is often better to top post. Those who want additional context can
see it below, but most people will not need this context and can just move
on or reply after seeing your words. Most people will not need this
context =because= your post is self-contained; if your post is not self
contained then obviously this doesn't apply in that case.

I suppose that problems arise because one =thinks= their post is self
contained, (after all, the poster knows the context) but it in fact is not.
I
won't venture a guess as to how many people think how many posts are how
far past that line, except to say that it appears that enough do to sustain
this usenet perpetual motion machine.

Never confuse motion with action.
Never confuse action with results.

And never confuse results with what you wanted in the first place.

Jose
(note - I only follow rec.aviation.piloting, of the 3 groups I replied to)

ShawnD2112 wrote on 11/15/2004 22:47:

I've never understood why top posting is seen as such an evil thing.
What am I missing?


A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?

Or, in other words, top-posting reverses the normal flow of reading.

-Joe


--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.