Hi, I used to think split posting was good. But now I can't stand it. I spend more time trying to distinguish between Original content and New content than reading the actual information provided! And when a thread is continued, It just ends up a big mess.
The idea of resending the original content (again and again) is so you can review the original/previous post's for clarification with ease without having to wade through old individual messages. I don't mind html in email either. Text is small. And unless your archiving email on a floppy disk, I can't see how space could be a problem. Even the smallest HD is huge compared to the space requirements of text email storage. As far as covering the NUMEROUS posts on this forum, I let GMAIL do all the archiving (just in case I need to review some previous post) for me and leave my local email client for storing more personal emails. Searching the old emails for information is just a pitta. And I don't bother doing it. Not even with the downloadable forum archives. Probably to my detriment to some extent I'm sure. Michael. Yuki Taga wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > >>>>> Great, you have learned a valuable lesson. > >>>> Okay, then I'll never do it again. > >>> No. > >> But doesn't that make it more convenient and easier to read? > > Not really. > Is it a good idea to top post? > > Yuki > > Monday, February 19, 2007, 10:36:32 AM, you wrote: > > MSG> Two words: > > MSG> TOP POST > > Top posters *never* trim messages. Go back and look at the archives. > They don't, for the most part. They send a one line answer at the > top worth 2-kb or less, and let a 135-kb message get sent again and > again. > > Sadly, the list owner here *prefers* top posting. So we have no > choice, really. But that is only because he has more RAM and disk > space between his ears than most of us have. He doesn't *need* to > see and understand the context; he remembers *everything*! ^_- >