In alt.os.linux.gentoo, Albert uttered the immortal words:

> Concerning my way of posting, it is my choice to post on top, because I
> don't think it is a good idea to read through tons of replies to find
> the answer at the bottom. Instead, I think it is a loss of time.

You only have to read down 6 lines to read this bit of my reply (the
introduction phrase, 3 lines quoted from your post and 2 blank lines). You
can then skip the 2 or 3 lines I quoted to see my other replies to your
post. All the time you're reading top to bottom and you can see exactly
which points in your post I'm replying to. When you reach the bottom you've
read the whole post. There's no need to scroll up unless you choose to do
so. How is that a waste of time?

> When
> you follow a thread, you generally know already the discussion and you
> don't need to read all the text again.

You're making an assumption here. What if there are no replies to a thread
for a few days? What if someone is away and doesn't read the group for a
few days? What about groups that get hundreds of posts a day? Are you
expecting people to remember everything about all the threads they read for
several days?

> The text below my post is for
> reference only.

But you quoted everything that Sybren said plus everything he quoted from
previous posts making your post 81 lines long. You could've cut your post
down to 20 - 25 lines by snipping and replying below the points you're
commenting on.

If everyone posted the way you do posts could easily reach several hundred
lines each on long threads. That's several hundred lines wasting disk space
on the network of NNTP servers, people's HDD if they're storing posts local
and bandwidth when we all download the body and NNTP servers peer their
posts.

> Concerning in line-posting, my own feeling is that it is painful to read
> and may be seen as impolite.

How is this post painful to read? You can see exactly which points you've
raised that I'm replying to because I'm replying directly below them.
Someone joining this thread at this post can see why I'm saying what I'm
saying because the relevant parts of your post are included for context
(remember that there's no guarantee that all posts will end up on all NNTP
servers or will turn up in the order that they're posted). If I posted your
way they'd be scrolling up and down to try to make sense of it.

> You must understand that Internet is a place of freedom,

To a point. In most Linux groups it's the convention to post below the lines
you're replying to for context and snip the rest.

> and as long as
> someone does not offend the others, he is perfectly free to follow his
> own way,

Offend could be a bit strong in this case but some of us feel that you're
being impolite to the very people who're trying to help you.

> whatever the so-called 'netiquette' is. I don't know who
> decided what Netiquette is. Self-appointed ?

Usenet, like society, works on a set of rules. If I have a house rule that
people should take their shoes off when they enter my house I'll consider
it rude if you keep your shoes on. Linux Usenet groups are a bit like that.
I consider your posting style to be rude.

> Self-appointed ?

Look up RFC 1855 (I think that's the right one).

> I hardly accept conservatism here.
> I kindly think that you should keep this kind of remark for yourself.
> Freedom means some degree of anarchy, by definition.

You're quite right of course. You're free to post any way you like just like
I'm free to read and respond to your posts or ignore them if I want.

This conversation comes up again and again on Usenet but no one's ever given
a good reason for top posting over inline posting IME.

Apologise to all members of this group who have seen all this before and are
bored with it.

--
Andy.