Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting
2009/3/23 Christofer C. Bell <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> This isn't true. Come enter the 21st Century, it started nearly a decade
> ago. ;-) Top posting works well in a modern threaded mail reader (all of
> which, incidentally, support HTML email). Because *you* are a curmudgeon
> doesn't mean everyone else has to be. ;-)
> Your example looks like this in a threaded mail reader:
> Mail 1: Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
> Mail 2: A: Top-posting.
> Mail 3: Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> Mail 4: A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read
> It looks no different than a discussion forum or other normal conversation.
> In fact, reading bottom-posted threads in a *modern mail reader* is
> annoying as it forces the reader to display a bunch of extraneous
> unnecessary text (the quoted material). I just read it in the previous
> post, I don't need to see it again.
> I bottom-post out of force of habit, however, it's archaic and generally
Now imagine you are CC'd in on the conversation with no warning at
Mail 4, Now try to sort out why you have been CC'd in through all the
fancy fonts|colours, underlining background pictures, flashing text
and the like in an email that is now (to print it) 5 A4 pages long.
IMHO Personally I despise HTML and anything 'fancy' if it dosen't add
to the message it's noise.
24x7x365 != 24x7x52 Stupid or bad maths?
<erno> hm. I've lost a machine.. literally _lost_. it responds to
ping, it works completely, I just can't figure out where in my
apartment it is.