Stop top posting, please.

[Jeremy Fowler]

> To me, the whole top-posting thing isn't about bandwidth or 
> storage, but 
> courtesy.  The 'top-poster' by definition has included some 
> (or all) of 
> a previous message, preceded by their own comments.

I doubt anyone here was not clear on the definition of what top-posting is. But thanks for clearing 
that up for us.
 
> Since english reads top-down, this not only puts the text flow out of 
> normal time sequence, but says to me that the poster:

Your right, English does read top-down and left to right I might add. Thanks again for pointing out 
the obvious. 
 
> a) didn't take the time to scroll down in their mail client 
> (expecting 
> me and *ALL* other viewers to do this for them)

Well, one might assume that you have been paying attention to the thread and that you already read 
the post the reply was responding to. I guess you expect me to be forgetful and its better that I 
have to scroll thru the entire contents of the previous post to get to the new information at the 
bottom. Lord knows I for one have problems remembering what the original topic of the thread was. 
So, yeah I suppose your right its better to include the entire message history for my reading 
convenience right at the top so I can't miss it. Damn those people with good memories who can just 
follow along with a thread without having to reread the entire post history from the beginning to 
have a clue as to what the reply is all about. Damn them I say.
 
> b) expects me to spend my time linking the relevant prior information 
> with the content of their post, usually without any snipping 
> of previous 
> content or other syntactical clues that would make this easier

Um, why can't you just read what's at the top and delete the email? Why is that so hard again? I 
forgot. 
 
> c) simply hit "reply" and started typing, because that was 
> the easiest 
> thing to do (typically leaving a growing tail of signatures and 
> mailing-list notices at the bottom).

Why, should posting a message be difficult? Is it a bad thing wanting to maybe take a few shortcuts 
to save some time? 
 
> d) all of the above :-)
> 
> This (and other mailing lists) are public forums.  Any 
> messages you send 
> to the list gets read by a *LOT* of people.  By posting to a 
> list, you 
> are asking a large number of people to listen to what you 
> have to say. 
> It is impolite to ask these people to stumble over your 
> poorly formatted 
> message in the process.

I'm not forcing people to read my posts. 

> Bottom line:  When posting messages to a large group of people, you 
> should do what you can to make it easy for them to read, 
> conveying the 
> impression (even if it's false) that you care about their 
> time, not just 
> your own.

Bottom line: Your make too big a deal out of this!!! 

> Every message I see that is top-posted or simply quotes the entire 
> previous message verbatim (or otherwise makes it harder for 
> me to follow 
> the ongoing discussion) strikes me as slightly rude.  Not as bad as 
> spam, but I typically don't give these "inconsiderate" 
> messages as much 
> thought as well formatted, easy to read messages, so they're 
> that much 
> more likely to wind up in /dev/null.
> 

AHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHA... You guys drive me nuts... 

FROM NOW ON I'M TYPING IN ALL CAPS, SO THERE!!!! FUKC SEPLL CHEKC TOOO!!!!!