<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Shooting yourself in the foot (or head): One round in the bottom- vs. top-posting war</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.hawkwings.net/2005/10/03/shooting-yourself-in-the-foot-or-head-one-round-in-the-bottom-vs-top-posting-war/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.hawkwings.net/2005/10/03/shooting-yourself-in-the-foot-or-head-one-round-in-the-bottom-vs-top-posting-war/</link>
	<description>Tips and add-ons to make Apple Mail / Mail.app even better</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:59:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Shawn Levasseur</title>
		<link>http://www.hawkwings.net/2005/10/03/shooting-yourself-in-the-foot-or-head-one-round-in-the-bottom-vs-top-posting-war/comment-page-1/#comment-180101</link>
		<dc:creator>Shawn Levasseur</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:05:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hawkwings.net/?p=173#comment-180101</guid>
		<description>Maybe Mail.app should continue to &quot;top post&quot; when one is quoting the entire text of the replied to message, but &quot;bottom post&quot; when you selectively quote (when you highlight text to be the only quoted text in a reply). Where it would be more effective

I never even knew &quot;top posting / bottom posting&quot; was much of a hot topic with anyone until just this week. Strange.

In getting to your blog comparison. Yes, the front page being top posted is the logical way to run a blog. But I think that top posting in archive pages makes no sense. 

When I go to a blog that I&#039;ve discovered, and want to go back and read from the beginning of that blog. It&#039;s annoying to have to go to the bottom and read each post moving up. Especially with blogs that have longer posts. You are constantly scrolling down, then up, down, up, etc. 

Sadly most blogging systems don&#039;t seem to have any way to reverse this. (I think you can jury rig Movable Type, but that&#039;s about it.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maybe Mail.app should continue to &#8220;top post&#8221; when one is quoting the entire text of the replied to message, but &#8220;bottom post&#8221; when you selectively quote (when you highlight text to be the only quoted text in a reply). Where it would be more effective</p>
<p>I never even knew &#8220;top posting / bottom posting&#8221; was much of a hot topic with anyone until just this week. Strange.</p>
<p>In getting to your blog comparison. Yes, the front page being top posted is the logical way to run a blog. But I think that top posting in archive pages makes no sense. </p>
<p>When I go to a blog that I&#8217;ve discovered, and want to go back and read from the beginning of that blog. It&#8217;s annoying to have to go to the bottom and read each post moving up. Especially with blogs that have longer posts. You are constantly scrolling down, then up, down, up, etc. </p>
<p>Sadly most blogging systems don&#8217;t seem to have any way to reverse this. (I think you can jury rig Movable Type, but that&#8217;s about it.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Loyd</title>
		<link>http://www.hawkwings.net/2005/10/03/shooting-yourself-in-the-foot-or-head-one-round-in-the-bottom-vs-top-posting-war/comment-page-1/#comment-94978</link>
		<dc:creator>Loyd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2007 21:25:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hawkwings.net/?p=173#comment-94978</guid>
		<description>You answered your own arguement well.  Despite being an avowed top poster, you placed the reply at the bottom as it should be.

Thank you for your informative post.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You answered your own arguement well.  Despite being an avowed top poster, you placed the reply at the bottom as it should be.</p>
<p>Thank you for your informative post.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MasterFulls</title>
		<link>http://www.hawkwings.net/2005/10/03/shooting-yourself-in-the-foot-or-head-one-round-in-the-bottom-vs-top-posting-war/comment-page-1/#comment-68373</link>
		<dc:creator>MasterFulls</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jan 2007 10:12:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hawkwings.net/?p=173#comment-68373</guid>
		<description>http://sweet-erotic.net</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://sweet-erotic.net" rel="nofollow">http://sweet-erotic.net</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sandraissa</title>
		<link>http://www.hawkwings.net/2005/10/03/shooting-yourself-in-the-foot-or-head-one-round-in-the-bottom-vs-top-posting-war/comment-page-1/#comment-55897</link>
		<dc:creator>sandraissa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Dec 2006 23:05:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hawkwings.net/?p=173#comment-55897</guid>
		<description>Happy new year !-! 
o:))))) &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.routan.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Happy new year !-!<br />
o:))))) <a href="http://www.routan.org/" rel="nofollow"></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: klariska</title>
		<link>http://www.hawkwings.net/2005/10/03/shooting-yourself-in-the-foot-or-head-one-round-in-the-bottom-vs-top-posting-war/comment-page-1/#comment-50546</link>
		<dc:creator>klariska</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Dec 2006 18:45:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hawkwings.net/?p=173#comment-50546</guid>
		<description>hello 
im trying to fix a problem which is, whenever i click internet explorer two pages open at once..one is ok but another is a blank page with microsoft internet explorer written at the top and it keeps pushing to the front all the time.. im running internet explorer 7 with xp sp2..any ideas would be very much appreciated..thankyou</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hello<br />
im trying to fix a problem which is, whenever i click internet explorer two pages open at once..one is ok but another is a blank page with microsoft internet explorer written at the top and it keeps pushing to the front all the time.. im running internet explorer 7 with xp sp2..any ideas would be very much appreciated..thankyou</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim</title>
		<link>http://www.hawkwings.net/2005/10/03/shooting-yourself-in-the-foot-or-head-one-round-in-the-bottom-vs-top-posting-war/comment-page-1/#comment-2635</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 2006 04:53:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hawkwings.net/?p=173#comment-2635</guid>
		<description>@Roger - Would you be able to send me a copy of those emails about bottom-posting, just for interest&#039;s sake?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Roger &#8211; Would you be able to send me a copy of those emails about bottom-posting, just for interest&#8217;s sake?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Roger Harris</title>
		<link>http://www.hawkwings.net/2005/10/03/shooting-yourself-in-the-foot-or-head-one-round-in-the-bottom-vs-top-posting-war/comment-page-1/#comment-2633</link>
		<dc:creator>Roger Harris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 2006 04:32:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hawkwings.net/?p=173#comment-2633</guid>
		<description>I have always been a bit of a switch hitter. I mostly post to the top but on occasion the content seems better served from the bottom. 

I really did know this top or bottom was even an issue; And I have email since about 1994. But just lately a list nanny sent me a couple of note asking me to bottom post. I found this very odd as I have been on this list for at least six years. But I find it nothing to fight over. I now post that list at the bottom; when I can remember to do so.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have always been a bit of a switch hitter. I mostly post to the top but on occasion the content seems better served from the bottom. </p>
<p>I really did know this top or bottom was even an issue; And I have email since about 1994. But just lately a list nanny sent me a couple of note asking me to bottom post. I found this very odd as I have been on this list for at least six years. But I find it nothing to fight over. I now post that list at the bottom; when I can remember to do so.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sjk</title>
		<link>http://www.hawkwings.net/2005/10/03/shooting-yourself-in-the-foot-or-head-one-round-in-the-bottom-vs-top-posting-war/comment-page-1/#comment-2067</link>
		<dc:creator>sjk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Apr 2006 00:04:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hawkwings.net/?p=173#comment-2067</guid>
		<description>Gee, will I qualify as another moderate, too?

How I structure e-mail replies depends on the type of communication and who the recipient(s) will be.  Normally I use (and prefer) selective quoting with my responses since that &quot;you said&quot;, &quot;I say&quot;, &quot;you said&quot;, ... inter-posting style has a naturally conversational-like flow.  Sometimes I&#039;ll trim most of the original quoted text and bottom-post to its specific point and maybe add some unrelated comments.  Occasionally I&#039;ll top-post in &quot;business-like&quot; replies for the sake of preserving prior correspondence.

Pure top/bottom-posting often seems sender-centric to me, notably on busy mailing lists after dozens of replies have stacked up.  And switching quoting styles mid-thread makes things even messier.  Anyone else been frustrated trying to sanely follow those types of convoluted-quote-bloated replies with Gmail conversation threads?  I quickly abandoned any hope of read a couple Yahoo! Group lists with Gmail because of the inability to quickly determine who&#039;s replying to what when, worsened by the YG tagline propagation.  Hiding/expanding quoted text is ineffective for me in that context.  And Apple Mail&#039;s drain-bamaged message threading hardly makes it any easier.
. . .

My brother is a compulsive top-poster, and I never miss a chance to pester him about it.  There&#039;s something annoying and distracting with seeing my original message &quot;lazily&quot; appended to the bottom of every reply.  With enough begging he sometimes omits it, then quickly reverts to his preferred top-posting style if I don&#039;t &lt;strike&gt;nag&lt;/strike&gt; remind him about how much I hate it.
. . .

Adam wrote:&lt;blockquote&gt;Top-posting is fine if youâ€™ve got one thing to say. Otherwise, I think it is both more work to put your remarks in context, and more prone to misunderstanding.&lt;/blockquote&gt;I agree it&#039;s more work on the &lt;i&gt;sender&#039;s&lt;/i&gt; part putting remarks in context but don&#039;t see how that would be &lt;b&gt;more&lt;/b&gt; prone to misunderstanding by &lt;i&gt;recipients&lt;/i&gt; (assuming proper formatting on their end).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gee, will I qualify as another moderate, too?</p>
<p>How I structure e-mail replies depends on the type of communication and who the recipient(s) will be.  Normally I use (and prefer) selective quoting with my responses since that &#8220;you said&#8221;, &#8220;I say&#8221;, &#8220;you said&#8221;, &#8230; inter-posting style has a naturally conversational-like flow.  Sometimes I&#8217;ll trim most of the original quoted text and bottom-post to its specific point and maybe add some unrelated comments.  Occasionally I&#8217;ll top-post in &#8220;business-like&#8221; replies for the sake of preserving prior correspondence.</p>
<p>Pure top/bottom-posting often seems sender-centric to me, notably on busy mailing lists after dozens of replies have stacked up.  And switching quoting styles mid-thread makes things even messier.  Anyone else been frustrated trying to sanely follow those types of convoluted-quote-bloated replies with Gmail conversation threads?  I quickly abandoned any hope of read a couple Yahoo! Group lists with Gmail because of the inability to quickly determine who&#8217;s replying to what when, worsened by the YG tagline propagation.  Hiding/expanding quoted text is ineffective for me in that context.  And Apple Mail&#8217;s drain-bamaged message threading hardly makes it any easier.<br />
. . .</p>
<p>My brother is a compulsive top-poster, and I never miss a chance to pester him about it.  There&#8217;s something annoying and distracting with seeing my original message &#8220;lazily&#8221; appended to the bottom of every reply.  With enough begging he sometimes omits it, then quickly reverts to his preferred top-posting style if I don&#8217;t <strike>nag</strike> remind him about how much I hate it.<br />
. . .</p>
<p>Adam wrote:<br />
<blockquote>Top-posting is fine if youâ€™ve got one thing to say. Otherwise, I think it is both more work to put your remarks in context, and more prone to misunderstanding.</p></blockquote>
<p>I agree it&#8217;s more work on the <i>sender&#8217;s</i> part putting remarks in context but don&#8217;t see how that would be <b>more</b> prone to misunderstanding by <i>recipients</i> (assuming proper formatting on their end).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim</title>
		<link>http://www.hawkwings.net/2005/10/03/shooting-yourself-in-the-foot-or-head-one-round-in-the-bottom-vs-top-posting-war/comment-page-1/#comment-2035</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Mar 2006 20:03:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hawkwings.net/?p=173#comment-2035</guid>
		<description>Ah, another moderate like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hawkwings.net/2005/12/14/joe-kissell-on-top-vs-bottom-posting/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Joe Kissell&lt;/a&gt;. Where&#039;s the fun in that? ;-)

&quot;Inter-posting&quot; sounds very sensible to me, esp. if everyone were as sensible as you about structuring their initial message.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ah, another moderate like <a href="http://www.hawkwings.net/2005/12/14/joe-kissell-on-top-vs-bottom-posting/" rel="nofollow">Joe Kissell</a>. Where&#8217;s the fun in that? ;-)</p>
<p>&#8220;Inter-posting&#8221; sounds very sensible to me, esp. if everyone were as sensible as you about structuring their initial message.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam Rice</title>
		<link>http://www.hawkwings.net/2005/10/03/shooting-yourself-in-the-foot-or-head-one-round-in-the-bottom-vs-top-posting-war/comment-page-1/#comment-2034</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam Rice</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Mar 2006 17:31:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hawkwings.net/?p=173#comment-2034</guid>
		<description>I am an &quot;inter-poster&quot;. When responding to a message, I try to address each of the writer&#039;s points directly after them, interleaving my message with the quoted message. I think this is what Dan Ridley is getting at. I also try to structure the e-mail I send to encourage inter-posting, by organizing my points into lists on separate lines.

Top-posting is fine if you&#039;ve got one thing to say. Otherwise, I think it is both more work to put your remarks in context, and more prone to misunderstanding.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am an &#8220;inter-poster&#8221;. When responding to a message, I try to address each of the writer&#8217;s points directly after them, interleaving my message with the quoted message. I think this is what Dan Ridley is getting at. I also try to structure the e-mail I send to encourage inter-posting, by organizing my points into lists on separate lines.</p>
<p>Top-posting is fine if you&#8217;ve got one thing to say. Otherwise, I think it is both more work to put your remarks in context, and more prone to misunderstanding.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.347 seconds -->
