At 12:27 PM 11/18/2002, Simon Reinhardt wrote:
>If you've been following a particular thread, then having the newest
>replies at the top makes the most sense, as you've probably already
>seen the older stuff. If you're jumping into a particular topic in the
>middle of it's life-span, then sure, you might have to do some
>scrolling, but so what?

This (it seems to me) assumes that the whole history of messages is going
to be contained in each successive message, a situation which I most
earnestly deplore.  I think there is only one situation where that is not
wasteful and rude (excuse me, "a breach of netiquette") -- writing to a
customer-service department where each successive message may be read by a
different person.  Such places typically request you to place your remarks
at the top, but include everything that has passed back and forth before.

Since my message of my own posting philosophy apparently didn't reach Bill,
I'll take the liberty of repeating it here:

>On top if short answer that uses a short msg as context -- entire thing
>should be visible on one screen; if not, bottom quote.
>On bottom if quoting a particular chunk of a message.
>[generalizes to] individual responses below quoted chunks.
>
>In all cases, TRIM THE DAM' THING so you're only quoting the parts that
>matter to the response(s).

To which I'll add a useful rule of thumb that some lists and newsgroups
actually enforce:  Unless there's a very good reason, the volume of quoted
material should not exceed that of new material.

david

--
David Beierl - Providence RI USA -- http://pws.prserv.net/synergy/Vanagon/
'84 Westy "Dutiful Passage"
'85 GL "Poor Relation"