RE: [cobalt-users] top posting? My last comment on the subject

[Dom Latter <DLatter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Okay, if you're bored of this - learn how to use a kill-file.

Meanwhile, the validity or otherwise of the meta-FAQ is 
most definitely on-topic  - "The FAQ is dead wrong" was 
the claim.  And as the main mover behind the FAQ, you can
hardly blame me for responding.  Why I'm following-up to 
Rodolfo, I don't know.

> I strongly disagree with Mr. Brownback (true, I've only been 
> on the Net for 13 years, but still... top-posting on a mailing 
> list is just a pain in the  ass), and I've read the RFC in question 
> and do believe that bottom-posting is the "correct" way to do it. 

Frankly I find the following - "never in my 15 years of using the 
Internet have I ever heard of *not* using "top posting." In every 
group I've been involved it was *preferred*!" - incredible. In the 
literal sense.

Every long-established (i.e. populated by people who remember The
Year September Never Ended) newsgroup and mailing list I've ever 
come across adheres to the established conventions as laid out in 
the meta-FAQ.

Mr Brownback also said:

> Second, *nowhere* in the RFC is it recommended that you do not "top
> post."

In my opinion, at the time that RFC was written, the top-posting 
argument did not exist.  However what it does say is:

"If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you 
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just 
enough text of the original to give a context. This will make sure 
readers understand when they start to read your response. Since 
NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the postings 
from one host to another, it is possible to see a response to a 
message before seeing the original. Giving context helps everyone. 
But do not include the entire original!"

which is a clear enough indication to me that the one thing you 
should not do is have your response then the entire original.

It seems to me that those who object to bottom-posting are actually 
objecting to people who fail to trim.