Re: [tlug] Better to have "bottom-posted"?

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

Curt Sampson writes:

 > The needs to be written differently if it's not done in
 > "interspersed" mode, but in my opinion this often makes for higher
 > quality posts, rather than lower quality. The common
 > "quote-a-bit-write-a-bit" mode of arguing in posts I find often
 > tends to get bogged down in details while missing the larger point
 > of the discussion,

In academia this is a virtue, but I acknowledge that in business and
in most discussions it's not.

 > and many posts I see in this form could benefit from being
 > rewritten as a small, wholistic essay rather than a list of
 > independent point-by-point refutations.

Sure.  Many of them would also benefit even more from never being sent
at all.  But both points are true of posts written in *any* form.

 > > The reason I object to top-posting in general is the same reason
 > > I object to giving anybody in school a wordprocessor: it
 > > encourages shoddy, thoughtless writing.
 > 
 > Do you think that's really the case?

Yes, I really do.  I've dealt with a wide variety of students, and
since students grow up to be people, I suspect people are similar.
The sad thing about wordprocessors is that when reading an illegible
hand you may be tempted to believe on that basis alone that the author
is a fool, but the clarity of printed output all too often removes all
doubt.

Obviously, wordprocessors are an essential productivity tool, even for
students.  But they are devilish tempters (and presentation software
is even worse).