On Sun, 2014-05-18 at 00:29 +0200, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
Am 17.05.2014 23:22, schrieb Always Learning:
Top posting ALWAYS makes sense when the poster has included nearly 200 lines of redundant and time-wasting waffle from previous posters.
False argument.
I am against TOP POSTING. But I write truthfully that it does make sense when the person, who incorporates 200 lines of redundant text in their reply, posts.
I am responding to reality. Leider das "reality is not always perfect".
Top-posting is nearly always combined with fully quoting the previous mailing. That is bsolutely unnecessary on a mailinglist and even a waste of resources.
Strip off redundant content!
I wholly agree.
Scrolling down - all the way down - to read a few words is time wasting and irritating.
Then why not just erasing all the rubbish you don't care about?
I do with my postings.
Until posters ruthlessly exclude all redundant material, top posting makes sense because it is the fastest and most efficient method of conveying a response to others on the mail list.
No, it just demonstrates that you as the top-poster and full quoter are not caring for the previous communication and not caring enough for a sane readable thread. If the top-poster just cares for his quick and "easy" action, then why does he reply at all?
I am not a "top" poster. I am an "insert" poster.
There is an art to replying intelligently to a previous posting - interspersing replies to the previous poster's comments BUT ALWAYS EXCLUDING SURPLUS TEXT.
full ack!
Wunderbar :-)
Have you ever searched for something in a mailing list archive and then stumbled about a thread where proper quoting and stripping the context is wildly mixed with top-poster and full-quoter messages? It is a mess to find the helpful arguments and content.
I have experienced the same difficulties.
Mfg,
Paul.