On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 16:33:10 +0100, "Dave"
wrote:

Can someone explain why "bottom posting" is considered better than "top
posting"...

I'll let others do that - my preference is to mix as follows.

I far prefer posts at the top, simply because the new information can be
read easily and then, if it looks interesting, I can scroll through the
history if I haven't been following the thread. If people post at the
bottom I frequently don't bother scrolling down to read it. Posting at
the bottom would be OK if people didn't insist on quoting all that's
gone before.

I prefer for messages to be chopped into logical sections (as I am
doing here), with responses to each section immediately following the
query or issue. I find it much easier to follow than a long message
with a long reply (top or bottom).

The other "advantage" is that whole sections of redundant information
can be deleted from the reply.

Also, why do some people get so worked up about it?

It's personal preference stuff, mostly. Some people prefer net
curtains, others hate them. Same with blinds and so on.

If a message is particularly long then it can take a while to download
for people using a modem.

(retires to fall-out shelter.....)

No need. You'll never get a consensus on posting preferences. We each
like our own particular style, and everyone else's is considered bad.

PoP