A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
- unknown
I generally classify replies into two categories. One has information related to many portions of the original - that is best written by interleaving the new information with the original (clearly quoted of course).
The other adds a small single item to an ongoing discussion - and that is best done with inserting the new information at the top, since the readers are familiar with the previous message(s) of the discussion and do not need to read them again. The previous text is included so that readers can refresh their memory if they need an exact detail from the preceeding discussion, or if they come back to the message after a long delay. But the ongoing immediate discussion is best served by keeping the stuff that the readers NEED to see at the top so they can conveniently skip the rest that they already know.
Re:not absolute
chromatic on 2004-02-23T00:36:51
I disagree.
> I can't accept "top posting is evil" as an absolute dictum.
> I generally classify replies into two categories. One has information related to many > portions of the original - that is best written by interleaving the new >information with the original (clearly quoted of course).
> The other adds a small single item to an ongoing discussion - and that is best done > with inserting the new information at the top, since the readers are familiar > with the previous message(s) of the discussion and do not need to read them again.> The previous text is included so that readers can refresh their memory if > they need an exact detail from the preceeding discussion, or if they come back to> the message after a long delay. But the ongoing immediate discussion is best > served by keeping the stuff that the readers NEED to see at the top so they > can conveniently skip the rest that they already know.Re:not absolute
educated_foo on 2004-02-23T04:17:31
Me too.
> I disagree.
>
> > I can't accept "top posting is evil" as an absolute dictum.
>
> > I generally classify replies into two categories. One has
> > information related to many > portions of the original - that
> > is best written by interleaving the new >information with the
> > original (clearly quoted of course).
>
> > The other adds a small single item to an ongoing discussion -
> > and that is best done > with inserting the new information at
> > the top, since the readers are familiar > with the previous
> > message(s) of the discussion and do not need to read them
> > again.> The previous text is included so that readers can
> > refresh their memory if > they need an exact detail from the
> > preceeding discussion, or if they come back to> the message
> > after a long delay. But the ongoing immediate discussion is
> > best > served by keeping the stuff that the readers NEED to see
> > at the top so they > can conveniently skip the rest that they
> > already know.
