[LINK] Top posting is evil [was Re: vip-l: Electronic votiing]

[Adam Todd]

Andy I think really the issue is how many people in the world using email 
every day even know what RFC means, yet alone read it!

At 03:47 PM 16/11/2006, Andy Farkas wrote:
>Rick Welykochy wrote:
>>Craig Sanders wrote:
>>
>> > ps: top-posting is evil.  replies go underneath quoted material, not 
>> above it.
>>
>>Couldn't agree with you more. Someone's sig even demonstrates how
>>ridiculous tand disinformative top posting is.
>
>The one that goes:

and ?

>A: Yes.
>>Q: Are you sure?
>> >A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>> >>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
>
>My question is: how many Linkers have read RFC 1855??
>
>ps. <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855>

To be honest, there are times when top posting is just more efficient.

However, I have to admit, insert quoting is a very effective means of 
communications.

I have taken to using what people call "e-mail" style writing to legal 
letters.  Quoting what the previous correspondence said and applying my 
replies or comments.

In doing this, I've found people do one of two things:

1.  Don't reply because they have no response.

2.  Get really pissed off because they can't ignore something in the paper 
trail thread because it's repeated over and over and over in each future 
letter.

In legal context this is a powerful tool.  People usually "extract" a 
section of a document for examination, if you have insert replied and 
carried the thread in an ongoing fashion, they have no ability to ignore, 
or eject the information they previously provided.

It's most effective when dealing with NSW Police :)