Sorry for an extensive, point-by-point response, I promise I'm done with this subject now...
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:16 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman <dirk...@ochtman.nl> wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> +1. Top posting is the worst. >> >> In case you're being sarcastic (which seems likely), perhaps that is >> not the most productive response to a fairly low-key, open email. If >> you disagree, you could just say so and maybe explain why you think >> top-posting is as good or better... > > Given the low-key and open email I didn't think a humorous response > would be frowned upon. It read to me as rather passive-aggressive, that's why I asked. > posting. Given that we're a mailing list I really do prefer inline > posting much more than strict top or bottom. If I'm replying > generally, I top post and rely on non dumb clients hiding quoted text. > If I'm replying point-by-point I inline post. Yes it makes reading a > single email from a long thread a bit more difficult but who cares > when we have public archives? If I get confused following a thread > there's an exact record of who said what. Alternatively I can just hit > reply and ask the original authors if a reply was confused somehow. I very much agree on inline posting. The problem with top-posting as I see it is mostly, that "replying generally" almost always isn't; especially not if the mail you're replying to was longer than a few emails. In those case, top-posting makes it quite hard to see what point you're actually responding to. > And then there's all the points raised by Nick in this thread about > clients that promote top posting due to interface, whether that be > difficult scrolling on a phone or GMail's compose windows. I think Nick's comments are completely reasonable, but I think they mostly agree with Andy's initial request saying "I would be happy if you just keep it in mind". > That said, making an off hand joke was probably a much more efficient > method to express how much I don't have an opinion on this issue. It may have been efficient for you with your high bandwidth interface to your own brain, it certainly wasn't efficient for me. Cheers, Dirkjan
