Xiaofan, On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:25:24 +0800, Chen Xiao Fan wrote: > Changed it to [OT] and let's continue there. Well done! A bit late, in my opinion, but never mind... > Let me re-iterate my point. > > 1) I think context posting is the best if it can be easily be done. > However it is not. I don't have any problem with it - I admit that some email clients make it more difficult, but that is a failing that should justify getting a decent email client, since it is failing in its task. Unless it was designed purely for reading and not replying, of course. > 2) Bottom-posting is not any better than top-posting. Yes it is. If every reader receives messages strictly in the order they were sent, remembers the orignial context, and can relate it to the reply they are reading, then no quote of the original is needed, but in any other case the quote should be present. And as such, it should read in order. As far as I know there isn't a writing system in the World that reads bottom-to-top - they all read either sideways then downwards (Indo-European langages), or downwards then sideways (Chinese, for example). And all email clients display the top of the message and expect the reader to scroll downwards, so reading the context first then the reply makes sense especially if there is more than one cascaded reply. Top posting makes nonsense in the latter case, and makes it really hard work to read. Interleaved, or context, posting as I am doing here should be easiest of all to read and understand, because there is little imposition on the reader to work out the comment/reply relationship. > For example, Wayne Topa wrote: > "The same is true of top posting a one line reply to a long post > and including the complete thread in the reply. That should be > history!" "Two wrongs don't make a right!" Not trimming irrelevant quotes is a mistake, and top posting does not make it any more or less so. Driving along with one foot on the brake wastes fuel, and switching to a smaller car so it wastes less fuel isn't the answer! >... > 3) Outlook and Outlook Express are the de-facto standard. The IT > administrators are not all stupid by choosing them. Some of them are, some of them are lazy, some want to make their working life as easy as possible, some are afraid to suggest anything different from what "everyone else" does, some work for companies where MS's sales team have persuaded the higher echelons that an all-MS shop is a good idea... there are many reasons why people use OE, and none of those reasons is "because it's the best thing available". So they have abdicated the decision making process to marketing hype. I think they are wrong to do that - if something doesn't do what you want, it needs to be changed and replaced, not "put up with" because someone is too unimaginative to consider changing to something that does do the job properly. Oh, and I've never used Linux in my life, so please don't stamp me with the prejucide you seem to have for those who do! > 4) Anti-top-posting sentiment is more religious or historical than > it should be justified. Some old timers make it a rule and try to > impose it to other users. They are still doing it, however only > on some unix-centric mailing list which by no means should be the > norm now. It's not religious or historical, it's practical. When I (or you) post to the PIClist, we are possibly read by about 2,000 people. If it takes me an extra minute to format my reply in a way that saves each reader *one second*, the net gain is 33 minutes of man-time saved, so that's 33:1 planet-wide gain, and one second is a very conservative saving. Now by making it easy on yourself and harder on the readers, you are saying "I don't care about your time, it's mine that is important". You can have that attitude if you like, but the chances are that readers will tend to stop reading your messages if they are hard work to read. If your reason is to inform / entertain / help others then that strategy is inefficient if it loses you audience. And why do you keep harping on about unix? This is a matter of etiquette and manners, taking account of what you are imposing on your readers, and it has nothing to do with platform. Unless you think that criticising shortcomings (of people and software) is somehow a bad thing, I can't see why you are taking that stand. A: Top posting! Q: What's the most annoying thing on the Internet? :-) Cheers, Howard Winter St.Albans, England -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist