12 Dec
2015
12 Dec
'15
1:26 p.m.
On Dec 11, 2015, at 7:12 PM, Brent Hilpert <hilpert
at cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
On 2015-Dec-11, at 4:43 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
On this list many replies involve responses to multiple points in the prior material.
Even if people trim the prior material, top-posting will still be non-sensical and
confusing.
For discussions of the nature for which this list is intended, bottom-posting - after
appropriately trimmed/selected prior point(s) - is the clearest and most (or only)
consistent method.
Top posting may be workable for simple, private, casual conversations. That's not
this list.
Now that I have been here a few days now I agree 100% I hope my sig is gone now I removed
it lol sorry about that.
>
It's a total waste of time having to re-read all the unnecessary crap
> many times just to get to a one sentence reply.
IFF people were to be considerate and delete/trim/remove all of the irrelevant parts of
the quoted material, then the placement of the reply would not matter. We are arguing
over which is the best way to work around refusal to trim by lazy inconsiderate people.