On Jan 30, 7:23*am, "Nigel" wrote:
"Peter T" <peter_t@discussions wrote:
This is a long established group with a large archive where the
clearly established convention is to top post.

I agree Peter T, not sure what the first responder said as by the
time I had read my original post I lost interest!

You are talking about two different things. There is nothing wrong
with so-called "bottom posting" if the writer exercises good judgment
about excerpting. I'm sure had no trouble finding my response and
understanding what I am responding to exactly, Nigel. (If you did,
you are a lazier reader than I am.)

This is a long and tired debate. The fact is: top-posting is often
considered poor netiquette. I must admit: I don't know exactly why.
I suspect because it might often be difficult to know exactly what he
responder is commenting on. Again, that is just due to poor style.
Nonetheless, one moderated newsgroup rejects submissions that are top-
posted.

Personally, I do not object to either form when used judiciously; and
I object to both forms when used poorly. In fact, sometimes I do
both(!). That is, I intersperse my comments among well-selected
excerpts, and at the end, I attach a complete copy of the original
article, especially when it contains a lot of relevant data or a
complete program.

To each his own. Nigel, no one is requiring you to read or respond to
articles whose style (or content) you do not like. And perhaps that
is the best way to coerce people to do it your way. If it were true
that "everyone" prefers top-posting and if "everyone" did not respond
to bottom-posted articles, the latter people would feel ignored and
eventually leave. Classic Darwinism.

(But expect you will find that life goes on just fine.)