On Thu, 2 Jan 2014 17:22:33 +0100
Philipp Überbacher <murks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 15:45:03 +0000
> Q <lists@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > My point was, there is nothing inherently polite/rude about either
> > posting style. However, bottom-posting IS very inconvenient to read.
> > If trimming is so important and bottom-posting breaks without it, why
> > quote ANYTHING at all.
> >
> > After all, what's quoted in bottom-posting is incomplete chunks and
> > no longer a full record of all that's gone before (which isn't an
> > issue that top-posting by design has to have), which makes it even
> > more inconvenient, because if you need context you have to flick
> > backwards and forwards between different messages to get the full
> > picture.
> >
> > The arguments in favour of bottom-posting are illogical.
>
> How would you respond to several distinct parts of a longish mail in
> your top-posting style?
>
> Regards,
> Philipp
Exactly.
The first mail reader to use top posting by default was Outlook {spit} because
Microsoft in their infinite wisdom thought businesses would want to keep a
record in the same manner as paper filing cabinets - totally ignoring the fact
that the mail thread does exactly that in a far more efficient manner.
--
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
