top/bottom posting WAS [GNUz] GNU/Linux ...

[Nick Rout]

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 11:23:30 +1200
InfoHelp <ask@infohelp.co.nz> wrote:

> Oh..
> 
> InfoHelp wrote:
> 
> > Is that a reference to DG? 
> > Nick Rout wrote:
> >
> >> Do you mean the proposition we are debating? How about "top posters must
> >> die" 
> >
> I had thought this meant 'put your comments below (& not above) the 
> quoted text'..

it was a dig at you for top posting, but an entirely ironical one as I
was doing the same.

top posting vs inline vs bottom posting is a perrenial debate.,
sufficient to say that its easier to read bottom posting on a long
thread because you get the thread history before the latest post viz:


">>>>how do i run foo-6.2 on redhat 2.0

>>> you run redhat 2.0? loser its way out of date

>> you could try compiling foo-6.2 from source so it will run against the
>>libs on deadrat 2.0

> except foo-6.2 needs version 5.5 of libbar and the version of libbar on
>redhat 2 is 0.99

Looks like an OS upgrade"


Except you have to scroll through the message to see the latest stuff
and some people can't be bothered and prefer a top post. there are only
half a dozen people on the list but i bet each has their own perspective
on the best way to do it.