"Bob Stephens" <stephensdigital@earthlink.net> writes:

> Hmmm...
> 
> I must be weird. It seems to me that having the fresh data at the top is
> sort of like an executive summary in a technical paper or a thumbnail
> preview of an article ala the front page of the Wall Street Journal.

OK, then start your top post with a summary of all that you're
replying to.  Which you didn't; someone coming in the middle of this
discussion has to scroll down and decode things in reverse order.

> It can be scanned immediately for pertinence, leaving the reader the option
> of tunneling down deeper into the preliminaries or pushing on.
> 
> Bob
> 
> "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
> news:3FAA8022.9321B9B5@Hovnanian.com...
> > Bob Stephens wrote:
> > >
> > > Why is top posting so unpopular? I think that especially in long threads
> > > with dozens of posts, that it is a pain in the ass to have to scroll
> through
> > > the same initial post and all previous responses
> > > for each message in the thread. Or am I missing something?
> >
> > Answer: Because its not the natural way most people read.
> >
> > Question: Why is top posting bad?
> >
> >
> > Having to scroll through a lot of quoted text is a pain. In this case,
> > trim the quoted text to the bare minimum necessary to maintain
> > continuity. Or, you can split the post and respond to individual items
> > in-line. Most news readers are capable of following threads, so if the
> > previous article is long and not amenable to being split, don't quote
> > it. Instead, summarize the points to which you are responding in your
> > own post.

-- 
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.