In article <3DD568E5.2020
...@nil.com>, nil <n
...@nil.com> wrote:
> The bigger issue is, I feel, appropriate trimming rather than top or
> bottom posting.
long-established _custom_ on Usenet is to bottom-post with
minimal quoting for context. A simple browse through the
years using groups.google.com will establish this for the
skeptical newcomer.
You may think that driving on the left side of the road is more
"sensible" or "efficient" (it certainly is in England) but the
fact that we have a _custom_ where everyone drives on the same
side of the road, or uses the same posting convention, makes
things easier for all concerned.
Sometimes customs make obvious sense, others make
sense once you understand the subtle reasons for them, and
others simply _are_. All three types can be useful.
Whatever merits there are to top posting (and "not as bad as quoting
the whole article" is not a "merit" in my book), the fact is that
said merits are not enough to cause a complete reversal of established
custom, which has obvious merits of its own.
The benefits of having a _single_ posting style far outweigh any
supposed benefits of top-posting for the Usenet *reader*. Thus
the only reasonable and courteous path for the perplexed poster
is to follow existing convention unless there is an overwhelming
reason not to. Which, of course, there isn't.
Those who have no interest in being courteous to those who read
their postings are free to post in whatever format they like.
And those who read their posts are free to draw their own
conclusions about those who would transgress against such a
harmless but useful custom. "Clueless", "newbie", and "lout"
are popular interpretations, justified or not. I would rather
have people judge my postings based on content, rather than
form. Hence I try to follow the established conventions
of the medium I am using, even when some of them seem less
than optimal to me personally.
And, IMHO, it's really pathetic when folks can find nothing
better to rebel against than Usenet style guidelines...
YMMV.