«

"T.N.O." <> wrote in message
news:bjo6ls$l5qkf$...
> I know that the *correct* way to reply to nntp posts is bottom posting(heh
> sounds painfull), but what is the standard for email?

As someone else has said, surely you have better things to be worried about,
or reading up on.

You can't do sweet f*ck (****) all if someone top posts in a NG or email.
There might be guidelines, but who follows all of lifes little rules?
Boring!


Worm

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:58:32 +1200, steve wrote:

> I top-post in e-mail to add my comments - in their entirety - to those which
> have gone before.

Then why do you not bottom post?

See why bottom posting is a good idea? Time, come here you have some
giving to do.

--
Gordon

Google knows where to find things, ask at http://www.google.com
Works for me, will work for you, so be it.

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 14:02:51 +1200, E. Scrooge wrote:

>
> "T.N.O." <> wrote in message
> news:bjo6ls$l5qkf$...
>> I know that the *correct* way to reply to nntp posts is bottom posting(heh
>> sounds painfull), but what is the standard for email?
>
> Since emails are one on one, and when you reply to something that you've
> obviously read first. Then you and the other party already know what the
> original message said. That's why I think it's better to top post for one
> to one emails.

Why bother. Delete the whole orginal message and start afresh.

The point of quoting is to remind the person/reader what they said, ie
what the subject is.


--
Gordon

Google knows where to find things, ask at http://www.google.com
Works for me, will work for you, so be it.

"Gordon" <> wrote in message
news...
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 14:02:51 +1200, E. Scrooge wrote:
>
> >
> > "T.N.O." <> wrote in message
> > news:bjo6ls$l5qkf$...
> >> I know that the *correct* way to reply to nntp posts is bottom
posting(heh
> >> sounds painfull), but what is the standard for email?
> >
> > Since emails are one on one, and when you reply to something that you've
> > obviously read first. Then you and the other party already know what
the
> > original message said. That's why I think it's better to top post for
one
> > to one emails.
>
> Why bother. Delete the whole orginal message and start afresh.
>
> The point of quoting is to remind the person/reader what they said, ie
> what the subject is.
>
> --
> Gordon

huh?
Is there only the 2 of us in this group?

Leaving some message intact helps the poor sod that has a look in a few days
time.
I don't bother reading every damn post, that nonsense is best left to the
geeks that have nothing better to do.

E. Scrooge

"KS" <> wrote in message
news:bjo751$62c$...
> T.N.O. wrote:
> > I know that the *correct* way to reply to nntp posts is bottom
> > posting(heh sounds painfull), but what is the standard for email?
>
> Who says it's correct ? Who says what is correct for email ? It's
individual
> taste. But rules to go by ? Bah.
>
> On the scale of things that are important in life's existence, is it
really
> that important ?

His hierarchy of needs must be well and truly full

"T.N.O." <> wrote in news::

> Saw a post on a forum with the signature as follows...
>
> "Just $1 a day to save a little starving african kid... or $2 a
> day for Jetstart... the choice is yours."

Slight change, but Ive pinched it anyway.

--
Just $1 a day to save a little starving african kid... or $2 a day for
broadband... the choice is yours.

Gordon allegedly said:

> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:58:32 +1200, steve wrote:
>
>> I top-post in e-mail to add my comments - in their entirety - to those
>> which have gone before.
>
> Then why do you not bottom post?

I do in personal e-mail.

In work e-mail I top-post becasue work communication is more like an
archeological dig - you go down through the stack to go back in time.

> See why bottom posting is a good idea? Time, come here you have some
> giving to do.

I think it should be called 'relevance posting' because all we are doing is
posting with our additions placed immediately after the relevant comment
from the prior post.

Therefore top-posting is irrelevant posting.

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:55:55 +1200, T.N.O. wrote:

> I know that the *correct* way to reply to nntp posts is bottom posting(heh
> sounds painfull), but what is the standard for email?



A: Because people read from top to bottom

Q: Why is top posting bad?

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 15:24:24 +1200, Worm wrote:


> You can't do sweet f*ck (****) all if someone top posts in a NG or email.

That's what killfiles are for.

"Uncle StoatWarbler" wrote
> A: Because people read from top to bottom
>
> Q: Why is top posting bad?
>

I had to read that three times before I got it in the correct order...
weird.