"jlrogers±³©" wrote in message
et...
When I started posting here, 8 to 10 years ago, most
everyone top-posted and
when someone bottom posted it was met with hoots and
hollers.

Do you have to scroll to the bottom of every message to
read the most
recent? Even if you have been following the thread for 72
replies?

--
jlrogers±³©
"Maxprop" wrote in message

nk.net...

"jlrogers±³©" wrote in message
news:uNndh.7418 "Maxprop"
wrote in message

nk.net...

"jlrogers±³©" wrote in message
t...
Top post and save the world some time.

Somehow I presumed you were smarter than that. Guess
initial
impressions can be deceiving.

Why do most newsreaders , including Microsoft's "Outlook
Express" default
to top posting?

You've asked politely, so I'll give you a straight
answer.

I don't know why Outlook Express defaults to
top-posting, but I can guess.
Most emails are top-posted, so one can assume that when
OE was designed,
it followed the email convention since it is an email
client as well. OE
is a very old email client / news reader--even MS has
come up with better
software in the intervening years. And OE is probably
the weakest, least
versatile news reader currently available. I use it
because it's simple
and cheap--it came with my bundled software. If I were
serious about
Usenet I'd probably invest in one of the better pieces
of software, such
as Eudora.

As for top-posting or bottom-posting, the old adage
"when in Rome . . ."
applies in spades. It is frustrating, not to mention
cumbersome, to have
to deal with top-posters when the majority of the
regulars in a NG
bottom-post. If everyone top-posted, it would conversely
be annoying to
have someone bottom-posting. Almost everyone here
bottom-posts. Jon,
you, and a few others persist in top-posting, which
makes for absolutely
no continuity in reading long threads *unless* the
person who responded to
your post cuts and pastes your post to the bottom, as I
did here.

There is no rule governing where you post, just common
courtesy.

Max


Yes. Dumb, ain't it?