Christofer C. Bell wrote: > On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net > <mailto:ron.l.john...@cox.net>> wrote: > > On 2009-03-22 11:45, Chris Bannister wrote: ... > > > 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.
Wrong. Since when does even a threaded mail reader rearrange the content within a single message into a different order? Chris's example showed the order of replies in a message constructed with top-posting. Are you trying to win your argument by trying to pull a fast one (by switching to talking about the order in the message-list pane instead of the message), or do you just not understand Chris's example? Daniel -- (Plain text sometimes corrupted to HTML "courtesy" of Microsoft Exchange.) [F]
