Re: [tlug] An old topic

["Josh Glover" <jmglov@example.com>]

On 12/02/2008, Curt Sampson <cjs@example.com> wrote:

> So why is it that if we've seen the material before, we want to see it
>  again before we see comments on it, but if we haven't seen the material
>  before, we want to see the comments first, without their context, and
>  then see the original material? That seems exactly backwards to me.

In general, "top-posting" is the correct way to handle a forward; you
are providing a short introduction to material that you think may be
of interest to the reader, not commenting on specific bits of the
post.

>  By the way, note that I'm not hardcore one way or another about
>  top-posting; I think it depends on the situation.

I think you and I (and Chuck) have a slightly different definition of
top-posting. Chuck's intro would not be considered as top-posting by
me, even though he wrote at the top. Depends on the situation, as you
say.

>  But there are a lot
>  of messages I see on mailing lists where I do wish the poster had
>  top-posted in order to save me the hassle of wading through a large
>  mound of material I was already familiar with.

Hopefully not on this one. That is "failure to trim", and is another
thing that I try to curtail pretty tightly on this list so that it is
easy to read.

-- 
Cheers,
Josh