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