The main issue I have with bottom posters is that on limited capacity devic= es or services you cannot see ANY of the reply. I would rather see the quot= ed text omitted than the reply. So, there are technical reasons why the les= s important text should be at the bottom. Then again, some would argue that= is already the case. ;-> Joe M.=20 On Jun 16, 2014, at 10:47 AM, Robin Bussell wrote: > Here's a link to an interesting thread showing what happens when someone = proposes a technical solution to this situation (incidentally the thread li= nked to below Implies that bottom posting is the One True way). >=20 > http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-list/2006-October/msg01391.html >=20 > I'm pretty agnostic on the top/bottom aspect but definitely dislike mid-p= osting styles where the insertions are not clearly differentiated from the = quoted text.=20 >=20 >=20 > Kind Regards, >=20 > Robin Bussell, >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu [mailto:piclist-bounces@mit.edu] On Behalf = Of Richard R. Pope > Sent: 16 June 2014 15:07 > To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. > Subject: Re: [OT]:: Top versus bottom versus interleaved posting versus .= ... >=20 > Russell, > No, No, not demands. Some assertions, yes. It is reasonably accurate = as to what happened and why. > Thanks, > rich! >=20 > http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/cha= nge your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/picl= ist >=20 > --=20 > http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist --=20 http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .