Christofer C. Bell wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net
> <mailto:ron.l.johnson@cox.net>> wrote:
>
> On 2009-03-22 11:45, Chris Bannister wrote:
...
>
>
> 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 in e-mail?
>
>
>
> 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
> text.
Wrong. Since when does even a threaded mail reader rearrange the content
within a single message into a different order?
Chris's example showed the order of replies in a message constructed with
top-posting. Are you trying to win your argument by trying to pull a
fast one (by switching to talking about the order in the message-list
pane instead of the message), or do you just not understand Chris's example?
Daniel
--
(Plain text sometimes corrupted to HTML "courtesy" of Microsoft Exchange.) [F]