TopPosting !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dan Farrell]

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:22:37 +0200 (CEST)
Pierre Frenkiel <pierre.frenkiel at apc.univ-paris7.fr> wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Dan Farrell wrote:
> 
> > . . .
> > Bottom posting forces everyone to read each message twice, and more
> > if cutting isn't performed.
> > . . .
>    all people in favor of top posting say that they don't need to
> read the quoted part, which is often true... but in that case, simple
> logic would lead to the conclusion the quote should not be present at
> all !
> 

I consider it a context for the benefit of the recipient, but provided
in a way that doesn't _require_ the recipient to read it.  

With careful trimming, bottom posting will be just as easy to read as
top-posting, and I think it provides context in a more readable fashion
as well.  

However, I stand by my argument that the context rarely has to be
read.  Therefore, I think there's something to be said for the idea of
including a transcript at the end of the message, just in case
- eg, top posting.