[NGs trimmed, as I now see an article from PJH in r.a.p alone]

PJ Hunt wrote:

I've always wondered why people posted the entire message at the top ...

In general, that is not (and never has been) the proper way to do it.

The previous text should be snipped (or otherwise summarised) so as to
give sufficient context for the new comment to make sense.

... now I understand how it all started, but isn't it a bit archaic today?
I'm referring to your explanation about the delays etc.. Personally I have
never seen a response posted before I've seen the original post.

Matters of expense, propagation times, and reliability of propagation
are *less* of an issue than they were in the early days of Usenet, but
it remains desirable to provide *some* context, *usually* without
reposting the whole of the previous text.

... just as I'm sure that no one here starts reading a book ... from the
very beginning every they set it down and then pick it up again, I don't
see why they feel we should have to re-read the original message over and
over again every someone post a response to the original poster.

If quoted text is properly marked then it is very easy to skim over any
with which you are sufficiently familiar, but it is readily available to
provide useful context without having to dig out the quoted article,
which *may* not be present on your newsserver, especially if you have
been on holiday for a while.