[LINK] Top posting is harder to comprehend

[Rick Welykochy]

Brendan Scott wrote:

> ok, my two cents...
> 
> Craig Sanders wrote:
> 
>>On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 05:08:11PM +1100, Ivan Trundle wrote:
>>
>>>Couldn't agree more with Eleanor! Get a grip, people... There are  
>>>times when top-posting makes far more sense - like now.
>>
>>no, not like now.
> 
> 
> []
> 
> Frankly, this is not a functional discussion it's a religious one. 
> I personally prefer bottom or interleaved posting.  There are times when top posting is appropriate or, if not appropriate, not objectionable. 

I certainly didn't propose a religious battle over this simple issue.
What we should be addressing here is the functionality and intelligiability
of top posting vs bottom posting.

At its simplest, a thread four deep that is top posted all the way
through is much harder to understand than the same thread that has
been bottom posted all the way through. This should be obvious.

As to the "evilness" of this, well, a better wording would be
"harder to comprehend".

We only have so many minutes in the day to read Link and other
lists, and anything that contributes to making that task easier
and more efficient is to be applauded. Anything that makes the
taks more difficult and a drudgery is to be reviled.

A good example is the SLUG mailing list: many more geeks on the list
and much more bottom posting. The geeks just "get it".

cheers
rickw

p.s. I haven't googled this particular topic,  but I am sure it has
been discussed countless times on countless lists.

Perhaps it is time to UNLINK!


-- 
_________________________________
Rick Welykochy || Praxis Services

A polar bear is a rectangular bear after a coordinate transform.
      -- Anon.