Re: TAN/ top posting
- From: Donna B <shallotpeel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:19:05 -0500
In rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs on Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:21:57 GMT in Msg.#
<FKPyf.8726$US3.7650@trnddc04>, "Buster" <j.jar@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Why is top posing a "no no"? I find when reading many posts, it's a pain to
> read the original and all the replies over and over to get to the new ones.
> I can understand if the post is a spoiler, then you wouldn't want to top
> post.
What is wanted mimics actual conversation. You don't read upside down,
conversationally. So, what is desired is:
Attributions.
Quoted material, edited to include enough but not too much.
New material.
Quoted material, edited to include enough but not too much.
New material.
Quoted material, edited to include enough but not too much.
New material.
Signature.
Back/forth, etc. If there's only one block of quoted material, and it is
properly edited, there wouldn't be much to read.
And, if someone doesn't get every post, or if they get some posts out of
order, it still makes sense.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: TAN/ top posting
- From: jttsonlygirl
- Re: TAN/ top posting
- From: jttsonlygirl
- Re: TAN/ top posting
- References:
- top posting
- From: Buster
- top posting
- Prev by Date: Re: OT/MS outlook and quoting
- Next by Date: Re: B&B - Adding something different
- Previous by thread: Re: top posting
- Next by thread: Re: TAN/ top posting
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
