[LINK] Top posting is evil

[Adam Todd]

At 09:38 AM 17/11/2006, Marghanita da Cruz wrote:

>....my own reasons for top posting...include:
>
>[SNIP]

>d) haveing now read the rest of Craig's email, below, we seem to be coming 
>from different perspectives...

Yes well where Craig is concerned that's generally the case.  Although his 
comments below do conform to 20 years of my own personal practices.

>>it gets particularly annoying when some top-post (perhaps deliberately
>>to "prove" some stupid "point"), and others do bottom-posting or
>>interleaved quoting. that makes it impossible to even see the sequence
>>of the discussion, let alone follow it.
>>as someone else said, a quick response to a single question in PRIVATE mail
>>is about the only time top-posting ever makes sense (and even then, it's not
>>hard or time-consuming to quote properly AND delete all the excess quoted
>>material).  it NEVER makes sense on a mailing list.

The other thing I really hate is when people quote entire messages 
including several layered footers.

Do people not know how to highlight and delete material that is irrelevant 
to their comments?

In some parts of the world, Internet users pay for EVERY BYTE of data that 
is sent to them, or they might reach cap limits on traffic from the 
necessary repetition of footers that have no bearing on the thread other 
than to tell you 500 times over that to unsubscribe click here.

Just because people in Australia seem to not care about filling Telstra's 
coffers with cash from their own pockets doesn't mean we actually have to 
constantly add more bytes to the data pool to ensure Telstra makes more 
profits to pay a CEO who's missing his $92 million a year US styled salary.

And just in case you didn't know, AUSTRALIA has byte counted data charges.