Top posting

[Kevin Stevens]

On Mar 22, 2004, at 00:13, Tony Crockford wrote:

> At 07:54 on Monday, 22 Mar 2004, Chris Pressey wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 01:50:14 -0500
>> "Denny Jodeit" <denny at jodeit.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It boils down to a 'When in Rome, do as Romans do' situation. The
>>> charter states no top posting.
>>
>> I made sure to re-read the list charter when this thread started.  I
>> couldn't find a single mention of top posting.  The closest thing I
>> could find is that "gross breaches of Netiquette" are "frowned upon 
>> but
>> not specifically enforced."
>
> Perhaps the original poster meant point 9 on "how to answer a 
> question" here:
>
> http://www.lemis.com/questions.html#answer
>
> seems pretty clear to me.

That's not the charter, though.  So far, in this interminable debate, 
we have a guy quoting an RFC as a standard, which explicitly states 
that it isn't a standard.  We have people quoting a document as the 
list charter, which isn't the charter.  And we have people blaming top 
posting on evil M$ software, which isn't true either - pine, for 
example, defaults to top posting when replying to messages.

If you want it in the charter, put it in the charter.  If you want it 
as an RFC, then get a RFC approved as a standard.  Until then, this is 
just a bunch of people whining that they want THEIR particular 
preferences honored.  Hell, I'd like my preferences honored too - don't 
start posting flames!  I don't expect anyone to honor that request, 
either.

KeS