At 10:19 -0400 6/9/04, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>Now that the volume has died down a bit,
ROTFLMAO!
>I would venture to mention a
>key issue in the top-posting versus bottom-posting war: In hot
>debates about controversial subjects, it is easier for a top poster
>to dodge an uncomfortable question or fact, with the email equivalent
>of a wave of the hand. The standard counter was to insist that they
>respond point by point, the intent being to flush them out into the
>open, where they can be properly dealt with. This was called "bottom
>posting", although it actually was interspersed posting, the ideal
>being a series of relevant quotes followed by responses. However,
>as with many things, what began as a debating tactic morphed into an
>item of internet canon law. That said, I have been in the position
>of having to force an evasive top-poster to bottom post; otherwise,
>the debate would have gone in circles forever. So, there is a reason
>to prefer one approach over the other.
>
>Anyway, even if there is no debate, I almost always bottom post, but
>with lots of stuff snipped, because I think it easier to follow. If
>the posting is long, I usually add a navigation note at the top
>telling people that the new stuff is either interspersed or at the
>bottom.
The problem with using bottom (or interspersed, especially
interspersed, which is really just a form of bottom anyway) is that
one has to completely rearrange the thread, trying to keep track of
who should go where, and it's impossible to introduce proper
attribution lines and quoting devices.
It's just so much easier if everyone bottom posts and snips judiciously.
IMNSHO.
Cheers from the Antipodes,
--
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|