[scribus] top-posting

[Gregory Pittman]

On 12/04/2010 08:20 PM, Nicholas Newman wrote:
> On 05 Dec 2010, at 00:17, scribus-request at lists.scribus.net wrote:
>
>> On 12/04/2010 02:21 PM, ehud.kaplan at gmail.com wrote:
>>> What does top post mean?  I use Thunderbird as a front end for gmail and
>>> clicked on Reply-list.
>>> EK
>>>
>>> On 12/4/2010 3:53 PM, Peter Linnell wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>
>> Top posting is when you put your reply above the original text, as you
>> did above.  It's considered bad manners by most people because it means
>> that you read everything in reverse chronological order.  I'm guessing
>> that Outlook and other Winderz email programs work that way because
>> dead-tree files are always done that way and office workers are used to
>> reading things backwards.
>>
>>
>
> Actually top-posting merely assumes that as a diligent follower of files and events one is already familiar with what has gone before, and does not need to re-familiarise oneself with everything that has been written before.
> Thus one may as well just read the latest posting, at the top.
> However when one is dealing with more than say 20 or 30 things at the same time and new installments come only after a few days, bottom-posting can seem like a good idea because one has the entire history in front of one in chronological order, rather like being able to read the entire history of laws in England, starting perhaps a bit late with Magna Carta, before ploughing through the rest and getting to the latest one.
> However as both arguments can apply to both top and bottom posting, does it really matter? Can't we all adapt to both, whatever the habits of the writer? Personally I find no problem with either.

For this list we have decided to recommend bottom-posting; it's not a 
rule, but a strong preference. For us I think it's a bit like the same 
reason a story starts at the top and ends at the bottom.

Another thing I see is that many of those who top-post simply keep 
adding onto a post rather than trimming it down to the part they wish to 
comment about. Especially if you're familiar with a thread, you don't 
need the entire thread contained in each post.

Finally, all too often it seems that at least some who top post haven't 
actually taken the time to read the whole post, and therefore may be 
adding things that are not novel or perhaps superseded by comments from 
someone more knowledgeable than they are.

_Sometimes_ it may make sense to add comments inside a previous post, 
where specific items can be in close proximity to what they refer to, 
but when a lot of this inline posting is done, it's clearly harder to 
understand at times, and one also has trouble keeping track of who said 
what.

Greg