Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 18:54:24 -0600 From: uidzero <uidzero@one-arm.com> To: FreeBSD-Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Top posting Message-ID: <405E3940.3080706@one-arm.com> In-Reply-To: <20040322004607.GZ52612@wantadilla.lemis.com> References: <20040319172130.GB2044@cs025_2k> <20040319174618.GH64130@keyslapper.org> <20040319223506.GA63254@bhunter.net> <20040320195318.GA923@alex.lan> <20040321014349.GJ52612@wantadilla.lemis.com> <DD43180C-7B98-11D8-BD54-000A95EFF4CA@foolishgames.com> <20040322004607.GZ52612@wantadilla.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >"Bottom posting", where you leave the entire previous message, is only >marginally better than top posting. > >If the text is important, you should be reading it. If it isn't, the >sender shouldn't have included it. > >On the contrary, it shows you what the discussion is about. In this >example, I'm answering your points one by one. I'll repeat the whole >thing with top posting. Tell me if it's easier to read. > >Agreed, mixing styles is the worst of the lot. That's a very good >reason to insist on one style. > >What's wrong with the convention we have? I'll answer this message a >third time in the style you propose. Tell me if it's easier to read. > > > Greg, This one just gets too long after a thread of 5 or more. I can relate to the others but, I just don't read any of the thread to start with if the subject or the original post doesn't concern me. :) That's just me though. Michael -- Michael D. Whities uidzero@one-arm.com http://www.one-arm.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?405E3940.3080706>