I sent the following two replies off-list, but as our esteemed leader has not ruled the discussion off-topic, I repeat them here so that all points of view may be considered.
Philip Taylor -------- MiB wrote: > What's up with the top posting from people like Chris Rockwell, Tom > Livingston, Karl Desaulniers and Theresa Jennings (a few). Perhaps that is how they prefer to post. So long as they prune heavily, I see no reasons whatsoever why they should not top-, bottom- or mid-post as they individually prefer. Top-posting with heavy trimming is 1000% more reader-friendly than bottom- posting after 100 or more lines of recycled dross. MiB wrote: > Which is why I suggested cutting the parts you don't respond to. > There were NO heavy trimming being done so you what you write here > seems rather misguided. > > This was a typical example when top posting makes the content > inaccessible for other users. A person that writes only for the OP > and not future readers have a very limited scope on the value of > their input. I strongly disagree. A top-poster assumes that his audience has the intelligence to remember what has gone before; a bottom-poster assumes they have the memory of a gnat, and forces the reader to wade through endless recycled messages (frequently nested ten levels deep) before finally reaching the only part of interest which is the respondent's personal contribution to the thread. Philip Taylor ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [[email protected]] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
