Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 00:12:15 -0500, Kumar Appaiah (a.kumar@alumni.iitm.ac.in) wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:04:29PM -0700, Ken Teague wrote:
> > There's nothing more painful when reading e-mail than to start from the
> > very bottom, read the message, then begin to read each reply upwards. It
> > becomes really bad when some replies are more than a page long because
> > you now have to scroll back down to read it, then scroll up to find the
> > next reply. Weeding through top-posts makes me want to kick someones
> > cat.
>
> There's something worse than that: A mixture of top and bottom posts!
> From the level of quoting at least, one can decipher pure top posted
> mails (however painful that is). But a potent combination of the two
> becomes so disastrous that I just forget reading that thread! :-)
I couldn't agree more. I have just been reading another thread on this
list which has had its readability irrevocably destroyed by a
top-poster. On top of this, our top-posting friend wrote in HTML,
tripling the size of his worthless contribution and to cap it all, cc'd
the list and replied directly to the previous contributor in the thread
(not the OP, who just might have appreciated it). Worse than useless.
--
Bob Cox. Stoke Gifford, near Bristol, UK.
Please reply to the list only. Do NOT send copies directly to me.
Debian on the NSLU2: http://bobcox.com/slug/
Reply to: