Why do people detest top posting so much?

[M. Fioretti]

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 11:31:20 AM -0500, Bart Silverstrim wrote:

>> you can't possibly be serious, are you? (just to know if it's time
>> to ignore this whole thread from now on)
>
> We all probably should have ignored it before now.

excellent point.

> But my question was, if his point is that people who arbitrarily
> come up with some petty rule by which to judge whether or not to
> ignore a posting for help are foolish or in some other way deficient
> in character because of that personal pet peeve, then how is he
> different...

OK, thanks for this explanation. Here's what I meant:

when one goes **above** a certain volume of mailing list messages
(I've made very clear in my other messages that "private" email
exchanges are an entirely different world), it is a sure,
**measurable** fact that it takes much more to remember or
(re)discover what any top-post was about than to look at a short
excerpt and, below that, to the new text.

Since this is measurable, ignoring such posts regardless of who posts
them, his/her ideology, favourite soccer team etc.. is as far as you
can be from any "petty", arbitrary rule. It's an absolutely impartial
method, with concrete, measurable benefits (saved time) to make one's
contribution to any mailing list the best possible one in the shortest
possible time. It's not even a judgement of any kind on those who
top-post: it's just "since I have little time, I can only afford to
answer the messages which are faster to read". Period.

That's why I don't understand how one could put such a behavior (which
I approve, in case it weren't clear) on the same level with "I won't
help you because, according to *my* own *ideas*, there's something
wrong with you as a human being".

Marco
http://mfioretti.net
-- 
Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how
software is used *around* you:            http://digifreedom.net/node/84