On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 20:49:01 +0000, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>
wrote in message : said:I personally think
in current times logic would point to top posting but history has a lot
of vocal adherents.
On Usenet specifically, I disagree. When you look up an old post on
Google it's handy to have the thing there with its own inbuilt
context. I think, though, that the most annoying thing about OE and
using OE's model for Usenet is that the entire previous post (and
history) is included, complete with sigs, every time, which makes even
the Google archive unwieldy. I could defend posting with no quoting
whatever, and I do use the top-post default at work (as everyone
does), but even then there are occasions at work where I lapse into
Usenet mode, with interleaved quoting, especially when people ask
multiple questions.
In a simple discussion it makes little difference either way, except
to the people who carry the news feeds (although the cost implications
of Outlook-style untrimmed quoting must be significant), but when
dealing with detailed arguments or more technical subjects I genuinely
think that top-posting reduces clarity. And because I think that, I
am happy to use interleaved quoting all the time, since it avoids the
confusion inherent in multiple concurrent "standards".
Guy
--
"then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales
