Is it really necessary to get so exercised about top- vs bottom-posting? On 6/10/05, Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 20:10:35 -0400, Patrick Wiseman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[...] > Do you see why it's nice to have the context provided immediately? With > a bottom-posted message, I can quickly scan the original message and > recall the context that I had read before. If I have to scroll to see > the reply (which should be very rare, if quoted text is trimmed > properly), I just have to hit [space] once or twice, and I can easily > tell when I've reached the reply because my mail reader colours quoted > text. My usual practice, actually, is to edit and interpolate, as if we were having a conversation. [...] > Top posters also tend to have the horrible habit of not trimming the > original message to only what's relevant... That's a different issue. > > ... I have my email ordered most-recent-first, and it saves me a _lot_ of > > time, whether the individual emails are top- or bottom-posted! ... > > I have my mailing lists threaded, and it's nice to be able to just read > the first message in a thread and tell my mail reader that I'm not > interested in the rest of the messages in the thread. I can't imagine > how you would do that with most-recent-first. If you just read the > latest message in a thread and find that you're not interested, you > can't just kill the thread because you don't know if that message is off > on a tangent, or if you really aren't interested in that thread. You do it your way. I'll do it mine. OK with you? I bottom post in this forum (mostly) because it's the norm here; etiquette probably requires that we accommodate the lowest common denominator. But don't get all righteous about it, for heaven's sake! Patrick
