A valid reason for top posting? (GPRS data costs)

[Allan]

On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 12:32, quixote8 wrote:
> Allan wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 17:16, Andrew Pam wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2006-09-16 at 16:06 +0930, quixote8 wrote:
> >>> "Grrrr ...... bottom posting (as default)
> >>> It is tedious, time wasting and annoying to have to re-read or fart
> >>> around with long serial posts that you have already read (maybe
> >>> several times)
>
>                 "IF, and only IF, If is a long series of posts AND  you
> have not been following the stages.
>
>                 Then, and only Then, does bottom posting make sense."
>
> Was the full quote

Apologies.  Missed that bit. That alone would go (I think) a long way to 
proving that top posting is inefficient. Even when you have been 
following the whole thread (and assuming the current message being read 
hasn't been trimmed), occasionally it is necessary to refer back to what 
was written before. Going over unread text to try & find old stuff 
doesn't make a lot of sense.

> And it stands      ;)


I still disagree. Largely because I find reading a story/letter/message 
from start to end rather than the reverse makes more sense. I suspect it 
also _helps_ to minimise the potential for misunderstanding, (though I 
doubt anything will ever completely remove it).

Also, there are many people (myself included), who tend to respond to 
emails point by point, as I find it makes a conversation easier to 
follow. Somehow I don't see top posting allowing that to work too well. 

Allan