For all you top posters out there, this is for you...

Stuart Jansen sjansen at buscaluz.org
Thu Feb 28 10:41:59 MST 2008


On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 10:31 -0700, John M. Anderson wrote:
> > But I only keep the stuff that's useful to me.  I delete threads quite
> > regularly. If someone replies to a thread I've deleted, top-posting
> > provides no context.  Each e-mail is thus standalone.
> >   
> 
> 
> Whats the verdict on middle posting?
> 
> > The most common complaint by people I hear is that they don't want to
> > scroll down through tons of quoted material.  This happens because
> > bottom posters are as lazy as top posters.  The only true way is to
> > middle post, replying to people's questions as they ask them, and
> > trimming old replies and old quotes.

Personally, I disagree with Michael. I find it annoying (but not overly
so) that he always leaves a pointless copy of the other person's sig or
the list footer. Personally, I would call what Michael does bottom
posting with the caveat that he sometimes misses a little crud while
trimming.

I choose to believe that your question was an example of why blindly
middle posting is flawed. The full meaning of your question is apparent
until the reader reaches the following paragraph. Clever.

Perhaps instead of calling it middle posting or bottom posting, we
should call it staggered posting or context aware posting.

-- 
"English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark
allies, knocks them over, and goes through their pockets for loose
grammar." -- Seen on IRC




More information about the PLUG mailing list