On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
> On 2009-03-22 11:45, Chris Bannister wrote: > >> >> Bottom posting of course is just as bad or worse than top posting. >> > > The only person who can say that with a straight face is one who has spent > too much time using Windows. > > > 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. It looks no different than a discussion forum or other normal conversation. In fact, reading bottom-posted threads in a *modern mail reader* is annoying as it forces the reader to display a bunch of extraneous unnecessary text (the quoted material). I just read it in the previous post, I don't need to see it again. I bottom-post out of force of habit, however, it's archaic and generally unnecessary. -- Chris
