From: "Ted White" <twhite8 at cox.net>
To: "WSFA members" <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Quoting
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 20:57:25 -0400
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Haggerty" <Paul.Haggerty at noaa.gov>
To: "WSFA members" <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 2:09 PM
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Quoting

> Which doesn't change the facts at all.  Top posting works just fine
> in the majority of situations.  The only time when it is a problem is
> when you are trying to read through a thread for the first time.
> If you've been following the thread, then you only need the last
> post (maybe two) to refresh your memory and the new material
> is the most important.  And therefore placing it at the top where
> people can read it helps everybody in the process.  Having new
> material constantly appended to the bottom of an increasing
> series of posts just makes it more and more difficult to read the
> thread.  This can hardly be considered an optimal strategy since
> initial entry into a thread is the more rare circumstance..

I'm amazed by the short attention-spans of those who, say, won't read past
"two screens," and those who have difficulty scrolling down past the >s, or
can't tell the difference between quoted material and new material.  (But,
since the increasing use of html-enriched email, this *has* gotten harder
to do.)

Beginning your post with "Which doesn't change the facts at all" -- an
obvious response to nothing immediately visible -- certainly makes the
point against top-posting, however.

--Ted White