On 6/10/05, Phil Dyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree with that point exactly. > > PS: 2 points for anybody that can figure out which point, or even which > poster I'm agreeing with. > > (I really did try to stay out of this...) > > phil > > Mark said: > > Paul Johnson wrote: > >>> On Thursday June 9 2005 5:10 pm, Patrick Wiseman wrote: > >>> > >>>>I completely agree. Whoever (the attribution is not clear to me) > >>>>wrote that crap about top posters vs bottom posters is an arrogant > >>>>idiot. Processing information in reverse order is much more > >>>>efficient > >>> > >>> > >>> Do you drive in reverse on the freeway, too? After all, doing it > >>> backwards is more efficient. > > > > Wait a minute, When you read a book. You start on page one and read > > right to the back of the book (Or bottom of the book) when you > > finish. Right? > > > > Same (should) go for emails, you start at the top with reading, and > > end up at the bottom where youre email answer begins. > > > > Is that not the best way of making it easier for other people to > > understand your email? > > > > Still, bottom posters may be fighting a lost battle. In all the > > companies i've worked for so far, there has not been a single > > company with a "bottom" post policy of any kind. > > > > These companies are usually the "exchange server" kind... > > > > Thanks, > > Mark > > > > p.s. > > Sorry Paul, for replying to you alone... > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
This whole thing has brought up such a great feature of gmail - quoted text is hidden away until you want to see it. I can't even tell the difference between bottom posting and top posting most of the time. :D