Leon Fauster wrote:
> Am 23.07.2015 um 18:06 schrieb "Valeri Galtsev"
> <galtsev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>
>> On Thu, July 23, 2015 10:45 am, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>>
>>> The main reason actually is chronological order. But not just for the
>>> reply .. but for IN-LINE posting.
>>>
>>> In a discussion where you need to make points in-line and where you
>>> only need some of and not all of the other posts, something that
>>> happens frequently on mailing lists, it is very much easier to read
>>> that type of collaborated message in chronological order.
>>>
>>> I mean, you don't read a book or a newspaper article or a blog post
>>> from bottom to top, right? Why would you read communications from
>>> bottom to top? And it is not really even bottom to top. If
>>> you take 4 emails of 10 lines each (and 40 lines total) .. it
>>> is 75% down to 100% (original mail)... then up to 50% and read
>>> down to 75% (2nd mail), then up to 25% and read down to 50%, then
>>> up to 0% and read down to 25%. What if someone made you read blog
>>> posts that way, or books or newspaper articles?
>>
>> OK, the shortest I can re-formulate your message is: on mail lists we
>> are collectively writing the book for someone else to read (much less
>> communicating with each other in real time ;-) Any accepted convention
>> is better than no convention: save everybody's time. Suits me (as
>> far as mail lists are concerned).
>
> I consider email as an asynchronous communication,
> therefore "book style convention" is recommended.
Yup. We're writing electronic *mail*, not text messages (here, you've got
140 char, tell me everything you know....), and you don't have a two-line
pager screen.... I see it as a slo-mo group conversation, and top-posting
is like the person who suddenly utters a nonsequitur, louder than everyone
else is speaking....
mark
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
