ordering of entries

i'm taking two online classes this semester, and we're suppose to post in "journals," that our professors get to read, but are otherwise private. though we're expected to post to it twice a week. i didn't "get it" at first and was putting my posts on top of each other (deleting the old).
then i realized - ta da! - that i should stack my entries, dating each one, so i would still "have" them all. but then came a new question - how should i order them? newest at the bottom or at the top?
before blogs, i wouldn't have thought to ask this question. newest, obviously, would go at the bottom. in a paper journal, that's really the only option, since we can't predict how long each entry will be. online the custom has become putting the newest post at the top.
the top is pretty much always a sign of highest priority - right? other than lists that get progressively more detailed/intense (i keep thinking of letterman's top ten, even tho' i find him more obnoxious than funny), the top is generally the most important.
this works well in the context of blogs because the newest post is considered the most relevant. if i find a new blog, i'm not likely to spend much time reading through the old stuff (who has time? there's SO MUCH to read online) and the new stuff is so much easier to find and peruse. and new, after all, is inherently better than old. this cultural understanding is dangerous for a variety of reasons, though it certainly has positive implications as well.
the generally problematic nature of this assumption is illustrated precisely in the context of a journal or a blog. if the new stuff is at the top i will read it, possibly skim an earlier post if it was alluded to in the first post, and then leave the site altogether.
unless i follow one blog/journal for a really long time, i will never understand how someone's life (or whatever the topic of the blog is) became what it is now. i will make assumptions about someone's history, inevitably. these assumptions, of course, will be wrong, since our past (individually and collectively) as well as the past of a system of thought, institution, etc. is bound to be more complicated and unusual than we can dream up.
so i guess what i'm trying to say is that reading chronicles out of order encourages human arrogance and ignorance.