On February 5, 2014 3:40:08 PM PST, Peter West wrote:
That simply demonstrates that it is not beneficial to either the writer, nor the reader. >On 6/02/2014 5:31 am, Robert Holtzman wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 01:37:52PM +0000, Tom Davies wrote: >>> >>> Bottom posting requires a ton of extra work such as trimming and >such >>> which office workers really do not have time for. > >Trimming is a sensible thing to do, whichever way you post. It's work >for the poster, not the reader, and top-posting is a benefit for the >reader, not (primarily) the poster. >..... >> >> I really hope you don't mean that trimming is a waste of time. Ever >see >> a reply to a digest message that quoted the whole digest. What fun. > >But doesn't trimming undermine the argument? How can the discussion be > >read sequentially when bits of it have been deleted? > >-- >Peter West >"For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or > >forfeits himself?" > >-- >To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org >Problems? >http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ >Posting guidelines + more: >http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette >List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ >All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and canno >deleted -- -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
