On Mar 25, 2010, at 4:27 PM, Jeff Johnson wrote:

> Funny, I can't find the original post so I have no idea what the boss's 
> strange request was.  I searched the archives and this thread isn't in 
> there.


        Well, the reason you can't find it has nothing to do with top- or 
bottom-posting. The entire original request was in the text I quoted, and which 
you re-quoted (and which I'm copying after my sig). Stephen didn't make it very 
clear that 'Ron C' is the boss, and that the blurb at the beginning of his 
email was the 'original post'.

-- Ed Leafe


Original post:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

> On Mar 24, 2010, at 5:33 PM, Stephen Russell wrote:
> 
>> Stephen,
>> Could you do me and all of us a favor, and when you reply to a message
>> try to leave the original message intact, and put your reply at the
>> top.  It is difficult sometimes to figure out the sequence of messages
>> and what is being discussed when the replys are out of order, or the
>> original message is missing.
>> Thanks,
>> Ron C
>> 
>> So much for trimming to save bandwidth!
> 
>       Next time you write a report, make sure to put all the paragraphs and 
> sections in reverse order in order to make it easier for him to read.
> 
>       Microsoft has screwed up a lot of what they've touched on the internet, 
> but the way they've hosed email by establishing top posting and no trimming 
> as a de facto standard is probably the most annoying.
> 
> 
> 
> -- Ed Leafe



_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to