I agree that it is more convenient for the original poster.
IMHO the onus is on the original poster to make things easier
for the reader - not the other way around.
The participants are the first concern. Then the actual readers and
then the potential readers.
Where do participants come from? They start out as "actual readers",
which in turn start out as "potential readers". Scare off the potential
readers and the thread dries up. (Whether this is desirable is another
topic.)
Regardless, people wanting to read a thread would read the thread,
not a single post. The quoted material is there just in case.
Still, many people look in after a thread has already started.
And some people might not get around to looking at a newsgroup
for a couple of days. That's what the quoted text is for: not
to archive the thread's history, but to establish (or re-establish)
context.
Lack of snipping is a problem with both top and bottom posting.
Agreed.
However, bottom posting makes it easier to snip, because you can snip
^^^^^^ I presume you meant "top"
everything that is exactly a certain post count back by simply
deleting everything that apppears after a certain point. Bottom
post snipping is slightly more tedious.
Not me. I scan through the post from top to bottom, snipping
excess text and inserting replies as required.
No. The use of the word follow is in reference to it following it
time, not coming after it in space.
It is a follow up because it is a response that happens after the
initial post, not because it is spatially located lower on a page
or whatnot.
Still, as a general rule, written text runs from top to bottom
as time runs from earlier to later. Bottom-posting preserves
this natural sequence.
Carrying the book analogy further, then everyone would have to read
the quoted material because you shouldn't really be reading the middle
of the novel without reading the chapters before it.
Not at all. If you read a book halfway through then put it down to
do other things, next time you pick it up you don't start over from
the beginning. You jump to where you left off and continue from
there. The same applies to postings - at least if they preserve
chronological sequence.
This is clearly a false analogy. You are not reading the thread.
You are not reading the quoted material unless you forgot what
has been previously posted.
And I sometimes do this. If I've been away for several days, I want
a quick refresher on what went before. It's like those movie serials -
I don't know of a single one that waited until the end before saying,
"In our last week's episode..."
Why exert yourself when top posting solves these problems more easily?
I'm just old-fashioned, I guess. I was brought up to have enough
respect for the reader to try to make it easier for him, rather
than demanding that he make an effort to read my words.
The poster is always going to be lazy. You can go right ahead on that.
Were I somewhat more excitable, I'd take that as an insult.
Instead, I'll just point out that I'm an exception.
Personally, I think it's far easier to get them to do something that
requires even less effort than they're currently exerting.
On the other hand, it's easier still for a potential reader to simply
ignore any posting that wasn't designed to be easy to read. If you
really want your words to be read, laziness on your part can be
counterproductive.
You don't write all the quoted material. Your write the original
content. And the original content is all read from start to finish
in the thread. So what are you going on about?
In that case, why quote anything at all?
Speaking of tradition, I believe the standard format for a sig is two
-'s followed by a space.
Quite so. Is my newsreader not doing this? It looks OK to me when
my postings appear in subsequent retrievals of news.
