On or about Wed, 1 Nov 2006 21:06:17 -0500 C. A. Niemiec said - >>Moreover, encouraging users to put new content at the top of an email >>makes it much easier to parse new information out of the latest email in >>a trail of emails; since most non-technical email users (now the vast >>majority) don't know about commenting and inline responses, suggesting >>that new content be put at the top (i.e, where the eye goes first) >>instead of after the comment (which could be several pages' worth below >>the bottom of the window, requiring scrolling just to get to it) is >>probably a good thing. >> >>Now, if everyone would edit the commented text to what is relevant, and >>maintain quoting, and do inline commenting, that'd be marvy - but the >>thing is, they don't. >> >> >>On 11/1/06 at 11:32 PM, Mikael Byström ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: >> >>>marco osti said it like this: >>> >>>>A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. >>>>Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? >>>>A: Top-posting. >>>>Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? >>> >>>Question: Why is this quote so meaningless? >>>Answer: Because it assumes all messages have the need for the exact same >>>structure and suggest that one rule will cover it all for everyone. >>>Selfevidently, all rules and beliefs that says there is only one way are >>>inherently wrong by design. > >Hmmm... I don't know. I kinda like responses at the bottom. > >:P > > >Chris >-- > > > The nice thing is that we can choose how we do it! The bottom is certainly OK on a message of this length, but some of the stuff that I'm sure we all get, endless pages of old rubbish that should have been edited before replying . . .
I do like Marco's sig tho' Cheers Graham
