Stefan Seifert wrote:
Topposting makes only more sense, when you are too lazy to quote selectively instead of just quoting the whole mail (probably including signatures and ads...). And to have some context is not only nice when reading through an archive, but also when reading a lot of mail each day. So it's the easies if you can just open a mail, read a few lines to know what the topic is and then read the answer to that and not to open a mail, read a sentence, have no clue what it's talking about, scrolling to below and start searching for some this vital info.
I can share one little story. At a company I used to work for, there was a long thread of discussion about something between a bunch of managers. In the course of the conversation the messages and replies were top posted, bottom posted, multiple comments inserted in the middle in some of the quoted messages ... stacked up layer upon layer since this conversation had gone on quite a while. It's hard to even explain but one person top posted, then next person bottom posts quoting everything from before, and on and on about 15 levels deep.
So at the end of the day, my manager forwards me this huge mish mash of nonsense and says, "Please fix, see attached."
I spent the next whole day trying to disassemble the message and the various layers to try to reconstruct the original conversation.
Curt. -- Curtis Olson http://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
