2014-04-26 10:52:28 -04:00
|
|
|
top-post
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-04-26 11:54:15 -04:00
|
|
|
n. , v. [common] To put the newly-added portion of an email or Usenet
|
|
|
|
|
response before the quoted part, as opposed to the more logical sequence of
|
|
|
|
|
quoted portion first with original following. The problem with this practice
|
|
|
|
|
is neatly summed up by the following FAQ entry: A: No. Q: Should I include
|
|
|
|
|
quotations after my reply? This term is generally used pejoratively with the
|
|
|
|
|
implication that the offending person is a newbie , a Microsoft addict
|
|
|
|
|
(Microsoft mail tools produce a similar format by default), or simply a
|
|
|
|
|
common-and-garden-variety idiot. One major problem with top-posting is that
|
|
|
|
|
people who do it all too frequently quote the entire parent message rather
|
|
|
|
|
than trimming it down to those portions relevent to their reply this makes
|
|
|
|
|
threads bulky and unnecessarily difficult to read and arouses the righteous
|
|
|
|
|
ire of experienced Internet residents (this style is called TOFU for text
|
|
|
|
|
over, fullquote under , or sometimes jeopardy-style quoting ). Another
|
|
|
|
|
problem is that top-posters often word their replies on the assumption that
|
|
|
|
|
you just read the previous message, even though their perversity has put it
|
|
|
|
|
further down the page than you have yet read. Oppose bottom-post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
