William Crawford <wccrawford / gmail.com> wrote:
>Chad Perrin wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 01:13:45PM +0900, Logan Capaldo wrote:
>>> On Aug 31, 2006, at 11:57 PM, Brad Peek wrote:
>>> >
>>> >What is "top posting" and why is it considered bad form?
>>>
>>> Responding Like This.
>>> > What is top posting?
>>>
>>> It's confusing and makes it harder to follow a thread.
>>> > Why is it considered bad form?
>>
>> I believe the canonical example goes a little something like this:
>>
>>   A. It reverses the normal flow of conversation.
>>   Q. Why is it considered bad form?
>>   A. It's posting the answer above the question.
>>   Q. What is top posting?
>
>You know, the problem I have with this answer is that in a forum, the
>first post was posted first...  And then the reply was posted, with the
>first quoted.  Before or after, it doesn't really matter, since I read
>the first post first.

This is not a "forum", it is Usenet.  There are *many* different
reading environments, some of which are entirely different than
that presented in a "forum".

Writing to one specific environment is a fault.  Writing in a
format that is more generally adaptable to other environments is
better style.  Better style makes your articles more effective
as a communications medium.

Hence, the question is, are you writing therapeutic noise to
satisfy your ego, or are you trying to communicate with others?
Stick with what *you* see is what you get for therapy, but go
with what *others* will see for effective communciations.

>It's still slightly confusing, but it's the way top posting really
>happens.

It was more than just slightly confusing... ;-)

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson            <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd / apaflo.com