[p2p-research] Top Posting - Cardinal Sin

[Christian Siefkes]

Alex Rollin wrote:
> I have been instructed about how not to top post and Eugene's version  
> of why.
[...]
> Top posring on top of another top post was my rationale.  Apologies if  
> I've offended others.  Now's a good time to stand up and be counted.
> 
> Who hates my style? Please speak up!

I can accept anything, but I find inline-quoted mails much nicer to read.
One reason is explained below in my sig, another reason is given at the
beginning of this mail:
http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2009-May/002905.html.

Note that it's not just a matter of "top" vs. "bottom" quoting, much more
important is to *trim* the quoted mails, leaving in only the lines to which
you're replying. That makes it much easier to the reader to find out which
context you're actually referring to.

Best regards
	Christian

-- 
|-------- Dr. Christian Siefkes --------- christian at siefkes.net ---------
|   Homepage: http://www.siefkes.net/   |   Blog: http://www.keimform.de/
|   Better Bayesian Analysis:           |   Peer Production Everywhere:
|   http://bart-project.com/            |   http://peerconomy.org/wiki/
|------------------------------------------ OpenPGP Key ID: 0x346452D8 --
A: Because it fouls 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?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090817/17c5ef86/attachment.bin>