On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 12:43:03PM -0600, Elvedin Trnjanin wrote:
> >> But if everyone top posts, this isn't a problem. Rather than going from
> >> oldest to newest, why not in reverse? It makes more sense to me if
> >> you're following a topic as most do on a technical list.
> >
> > The link posted by Jim clearly states why it's a bad idea to top-post.
> > While it may (emphasis on MAY) make sense chronilogically, it usually
> > makes little sense in context since one may well need to read the
> > entirety of the posts to understand what the post references. This is
> > especially the case when a poster is responding only to a particular
> > section of a previous post.
> >
> If we assume that the typical poster isn't clueless and know which parts
Bzzzzt. Wrong assumption.
Most people click 'reply' and start typing at wherever position their
mail program sets the cursor. Editing? Ha!
> of an original message to cut out or if they're addressing multiple
> points from an earlier message, they'll format their reply properly,
> then it would make more sense to top post. Why would you want to scroll
> all the way to the bottom to get the newest message? It also makes more
> sense when your (web)mail client has a message preview feature.
That is a quarter of a good point. But the mail client could be coded
so that is displays the first 'non-quote' in the e-mail as opposed to
the first five lines of text.
Cheers,
florin
--
Bruce Schneier expects the Spanish Inquisition.
http://geekz.co.uk/schneierfacts/fact/163
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20080109/73b20424/attachment.pgp