AVR-Chat

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 09:16:56AM +0000, np np wrote:
> I prefer top posting as it saves me scrolling down past numerous  
> previous messages.

1 line of new content for 68 lines of quoted bulk. You sure are saving  
*yourself* a lot of time. "68dd" trimmed the non-Yahoo! bulk in vim  
under mutt.

As Graham says, its not really an issue if top-posters bothered to  
trim. In my opinion most don't trim because they don't read what they  
are re-sending. As np np says, he can't be bothered to scroll to the  
end of a message, apparently not even his own.

np np, I don't bother to scroll to the end of a message. If I open the  
message at all if it doesn't get to interesting new content within my  
window size then its deleted. Top posting is wrong. Bottom posting is  
also wrong. If new content doesn't start quickly then the poster  
failed the courtesy requirement by failing to trim. If its top-posted  
its very unlikely I will reply no matter I might have the solution or  
something else useful, once again for failing the courtesy  
requirement, by speaking out of order.

On other lists I've seen text messages routinely bloat to over 250k  
bytes of untrimmed bulk when top-posters-without-trim run unthrottled.  
Bloats even faster when "rich text" is allowed.

Bandwidth and disk space is cheap these days, but all that bulk  
renders searching list archives practically useless.

-- 
David Kelly N4HHE, dkelly@HiWAAY.net
========================================================================
Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.