Christofer C. Bell wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Barclay, Daniel <daniel@fgm.com
> <mailto:daniel@fgm.com>> wrote:
>
> Christofer C. Bell wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> It doesn't, and you're splitting hairs.
No, I'm not. You're presenting unclear and/or unrealistic examples, and I'm
calling you on it.
> In a threaded mail reader, I've
> just read the previous post, there is zero need to provide context.
That's only true if you haven't deleted the previous messages.
If you've read a thread, deleted the messages you've read, and then come
back later, you have no context via your mail reader. That's when you
want some context in each message.
> This is what it looks like in a threaded mail reader when you're bottom
> posting:
>
> What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
>
> > What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
> Top-posting.
>
> >> What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
> > Top-posting.
> Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>
> >>> What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
> >> Top-posting.
> > Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> This sort of display is annoying.
Again, your example is ambiguous and misleading (since the display never
shows the above sequence (at any given time)).
Apparently you're also talking about the _sequence_ of displays as you read
through the messages.
Yes, if each message quotes every previous message in its entirety, it
is annoying, as you claim.
However, "proper" replying cuts the quoted text down to just what is needed
to provide sufficient context. Obviously there's a judgment call there, but
don't think thate completely untrimmed quoting is what bottom-posting
proponents are arguing for.
Imagine a business letter in reply to a previous letter, in particular
the stereotypical wording "Regarding your letter of <date> about
<subject>: ..."
That's the type of thing bottom-posters are arguing for: A reference (via
simply quoting, rather than rewording like the "Regarding your ..." in a
letter) to what's being replied to, but not the entire previous message.
> I understand the other Chris' example just fine. Do you understand mine?
Of course not. You construct them too ambiguously.
Daniel
--
(Plain text sometimes corrupted to HTML "courtesy" of Microsoft Exchange.) [F]