Comments on: On Top Posting

By: Geof F. Morris

Geof F. Morris — Tue, 10 Aug 2004 22:27:32 +0000

Kinda like that intentionally obfuscatory comment, Matt?

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 10 Aug 2004 21:57:38 +0000

Sometimes the goal of email isn’t to communicate information as clearly as possible.

By: the Sage

the Sage — Mon, 09 Aug 2004 23:50:04 +0000

I understand your reasoning, but don’t always think bottom posting is necessary. If I’m answering direct queeries or assertions by the original correspondant, then I’ll use the snip and comment method.

By: Geof F. Morris

Geof F. Morris — Mon, 09 Aug 2004 17:07:15 +0000

To be honest, it generally looks a little sloppy and includes more information than is necessary (it seems polite to get rid of the headers to save your reader(s) time, etc.).

That’s exactly why I do it. I may spend a little more time on it, but if my reader spends that much less time reading what I write and understanding it, I feel that it’s time well spent.

By: Jason

Jason — Mon, 09 Aug 2004 17:04:40 +0000

I prefer the snip-and-post, too. When I started writing and editing for cMW, I learned that way of replying simply because when you’re editing a review/article/etc., you have to provide specific context.

And it does slightly annoy me when people reply with top-posting. To be honest, it generally looks a little sloppy and includes more information than is necessary (it seems polite to get rid of the headers to save your reader(s) time, etc.).

By: Roger

Roger — Mon, 09 Aug 2004 16:37:36 +0000

If I knew how to make my everyday email bottom post, I probably would. But then I’d have to change it for in-office/out of office replies.