---- The Aglami Top-Posting FAQ ----
By Luke T. Whitmore the Nth, Esq.
1) What is top-posting?
2) Why shouldn't I top-post?
i) Continuity
ii) Ease of editing.
3) The Laziness Defence
4) Additional problems
--
1) What is top-posting?
Top-posting is when you put your reply to a post above the quoted text, as seen here:
--
It's spelt "Cthulu", you moron.
Yast <yast@aglami.com> wrote:
>
>>>>All top-posters should be disembowelled!
>>>
>>> I agree with this post.
>>
>>Me too. And after the disembowelling, their bodies should be sacrificed
>>to Satan.
>
>Wouldn't Cthulhu be more appreciative?
--
2) Why shouldn't I top-post?
i) Continuity
During a long thread on a newsgroup, several conversations can develop, therefore it's necessary
for people to have a bit of quoted text when reading messages in order for them to get the context
of the replies. With any normal, healthy newsgroup, consisting entirely of bottom-posters, such a
thread, properly edited, would look like this:
--
Frook wrote:
>
>>>>Yes, I do believe in some kind of God.
>>>
>>>The concept of God is just a useless relic of an outmoded belief system.
>>>
>>I disagree. Even if there is no actual 'God' that can be defined in
>>physical terms, the concept of God and the church can be a metaphor for
>>the kind of caring society that we should try to achieve.
>
>Ridiculous. How do you justify the Church's claim that black people were
>soulless, merely as a way of justifying slavery? Religion is just a way of
>keeping the masses under control.
Waah! Shut up!
--
As you can see, the conversation is easy to follow and readable. However, were this group to consist
of top-posters, the same conversation would look like this:
--
Waah! Shut up!
Frook wrote:
>Ridiculous. How do you justify the Church's claim that black people were
>soulless, merely as a way of justifying slavery? Religion is just a way of
>keeping the masses under control.
>
>>I disagree. Even if there is no actual 'God' that can be defined in
>>physical terms, the concept of God and the church can be a metaphor for
>>the kind of caring society that we should try to achieve.
>>
>>>The concept of God is just a useless relic of an outmoded belief system.
>>>
>>>>Yes, I do believe in some kind of God.
--
Unless you speak a variant of English which involves reading from bottom to top, the thread is
difficult to follow and makes little contextual sense.
--
ii) Ease of editing
People, as you may have noticed, are faulty. Sometimes, in the adrenaline rush which
accompanies posting to a thread on Usenet, they forget to edit their headers and the
quoted text. (The header is the part of the message which states who wrote the most
recently quoted piece of text - for example, "Frook wrote:".) Eventually
you end up with a whole screen full of who wrote what, and quoted text going a long way back;
it's unnecessary, unsightly, inconvenient and encourages the spread of infectious diseases.
Of course, when somebody who has fully operational common-sense glands comes along and wishes
to reply, they usually edit out the headers and excess text and the good citizens of the
newsgroup sleep safely in their beds again. Obviously the people who do this editing are
kind, gentle folk, and we should try to aid them in every way possible. People who post at
the bottom of messages make this very easy; an unedited thread would look something like this:
--
Frook wrote:
>
>Yast wrote:
>
>>Frook wrote:
>>
>>>A. Looney wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jesus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Foghorn Leghorn wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Textual intercourse is the most fun you'll ever have.
>>>>>
>>>>>I forgive thee all.
>>>>
>>>>You're going to get your head kicked in.
>>>
>>>No, we're all pacifists in here.
>>
>>And anarchists.
>
>And athiests.
Yes, let's lose the Jesus guy, shall we?
--
As you can see, all the good, kind person has to do is highlight all of the headers
except their own and a reasonable part of the quoted text below it and hit delete.
Not so on a group full of top-posters. The same thread would look like this:
--
Yes, let's lose the Jesus guy, shall we?
Frook wrote:
>
>And athiests.
>
>Yast
wrote:
>
>>And anarchists.
>>
>>Frook wrote:
>>
>>>No, we're all pacifists in here.
>>>
>>>A. Looney wrote:
>>>
>>>>You're going to get your head kicked in.
>>>>
>>>>Jesus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I forgive thee all.
>>>>>
>>>>>Foghorn Leghorn wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Textual intercourse is the most fun you'll ever have.
--
Editing the headers is now far more difficult, since you have to highlight them
individually and delete them. The same is true for the overquoting of the text.
Therefore, most people will end up not bothering with editing, or deleting the
whole collection of quoted text and headers, losing all of the contextual information.
Idiocy, and a kind that can be so easily avoided.
--
3) The Laziness Defence
"But it's too much effort to put replies at the bottom!" (said in a whiny monotone)
Now that's just silly. Do you eat meat raw because it's too much effort to cook it? Do
you urinate wherever you're sitting because it's too much effort to get up and go to the
bathroom? I only know one person who does these things, and Atob's not a top-poster. Seriously,
though, as shown in the earlier examples, by not bothering to put your replies at the bottom,
you're just causing other people problems when replying, so why not put in that extra bit of
effort? It's not too difficult to push the Page Down button, is it? Does it overly tax your
brain to hit Ctrl+End?
--
4) Additional problems
Something important about top-posting, I believe, lurks here:
http://www.okinfoweb.com/moe/bugs/bugs_047.htm
(thanks to Reinder Hummel for the URL)
--