On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 4:13 AM, Spencer Collyer <spen...@lasermount.plus.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 23:36:31 -0400, Fuzzy Logic wrote: >> >> How about a founded assertion? I find that if I'm actively following a >> thread, and the topic is not requiring a point-by-point reply, I get >> people's thoughts much quicker when I don't have to reread the message >> I just read to get to the reply. For example (not meaning to pick on >> you, Tony), but I had to go through 38 lines of your message to get to >> the meat of your reply. > > You might want to investigate the facilities you mail reader has for > colouring or otherwise marking quoted text. I've got mine (Claws) set up so > quoted text has a different background colour to unquoted text (and it gets > darker the deeper the quoting). As a result it is simple to work out what > lines are quoted and I've already read in a previous mail and so skip over > them.
Irrelevant. I have no trouble following the messages. My objection is to having them there in the first place. As you note, this is a preference, not an inhibiting factor. >> If I'm not following the thread, I would still have to read the same >> amount of text to get to understand your reply with either top and >> bottom posting. > > But if someone uses bottom posted (or even better intersperses their reply so > each point is answered in turn) you can read the message top-to-bottom and > get the context in chronological order. Right. My point is that most people reading the thread will have already read the previous messages. So, top-posting only slows down the people who haven't, which taking less time for those who have. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
