This may be straying from the original topic (but then who hasn't in this
thread :-), but I have a serious question. Like David, I didn't understand
the reference to "top posting". Nor Trevor's response -- at first (but I
got it eventually :-).

I have noted in this and other NGs that some people respond above the
previous post(s), some below. And of course with long and complex posts, it
makes sense to embed parts of the response next to the relevant parts of the
previous post. But apart from that the comments in this thread suggest that
there is a preference among the gurus for responses at the bottom of the
previous posts rather than on top. Is my understanding of this correct? Is
there general agreement on this?

I must admit that I have been guilty (if that is the word) of "top posting".
It has always seemed to me that when reading a thread you don't want to have
to wade through all the previous postings over and over again to get to the
gem of new information at the bottom. But maybe I have been wrong about
this.

Of course another issue is: how long do you keep adding to all the previous
posts in a long thread -- at what point do you snip off the older posts to
keep the new post length manageable? Is there (or should there be) a rule
that you keep the last "n" posts and progressively delete older posts than
that? Or should this be done on a case-by-case basis in order to ensure
that the context of the subject matter remains clear, without requiring
readers to have to dig into old posts to make sense of the latest post?

In other words, is there an agreed netiquette on replying to posts in regard
to top/bottom posting and snipping early posts to avoid bloat? If so, what
is it?

--
Cheers,
Lyn.

"Terry Kreft" wrote in message
...
A. People who complain about top/bottom posting instead of learning how to
scroll g.


--
Terry Kreft
MVP Microsoft Access


"Trevor Best" wrote in message
...
David Schofield wrote:
What's top posting?
David

:-)

A: Top-Posting
Q: What's the most annoying thing on usenet?

--
This sig left intentionally blank