On 14 Dec 2006 at 18:25, John Howell wrote: > At 4:42 PM -0500 12/14/06, dhbailey wrote: > > > >It gets to be particularly messy, as you can see in this message, > >because I have my e-mail client set to begin the reply after the > >quoted material. So David's message to which you replied is between > >your reply and mine. > > Which is why I always follow the form that the message is in when it > comes to me.
I convert the post to bottom posting, no matter what format it was originally posted in. > It really is possible to do things more than one way, > and just polite when you're trying to keep the logic of the entries. Top posting makes the logic backwards, putting the last reply first. > But I agree that there have been some much-replied-to messages that > make it almost impossible to identify who wrote what. If you cut what you're not addressing, everyone will manage to understand. I find that top posting tends to encourage superficial replies, whereas interleaved bottom posting allows for a detailed response. It's also my experience that many people who top post just don't read through to the end of what they are replying to. Since I tend to write detailed messages, this always annoys the hell out of me, particularly with my clients. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
