Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/22/2012 08:06 PM, thufir wrote:
I'm sure it was just someone in a hurry, but it sure*seems*
like a deliberate choice to re-define a standard.
Actually, it's quite reasonable from the proper POV. In business,
everything is filed in reverse chronological order
Speak for yourself. My business doesn't file in reverse chronological order,
nor have any of the companies I have worked for.
But even if they do, what does *filing* have to do with *writing
correspondence*?
I have written to companies many times, and not once have they photocopied my
letter and stapled it to the back of their answer (the equivalent of
top-posting). And I would certainly never expect to receive a copy of the
*entire* file attached to the back of their answer as a matter of course.
The fact is that most of the time people don't even notice that, after the
first paragraph or so of fresh text, is an ever-growing five or ten or twenty
pages of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of every damn email in
the conversation. They don't notice because they don't look.
and people become
accustomed to seeing things that way. Very large numbers of people use
Outlook every day for business correspondence, and for them, top posting
is natural and intuitive.
Except that, as I already mentioned, they are the same people who seem to be
incapable of answering more than one question per email. These two facts are
related: they don't notice the copies of copies of copies for the same reason
they don't notice the questions they should be answering. And on the rare
occasion they do notice, they can't be bothered doing anything about it.
Grrr arrghhh. Puny humans. Hulk smash!
--
Steven
_______________________________________________
Pan-users mailing list
Pan-users@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-users
