TOP POSTING (was: RE: Best 200 buck I have ever spent!!! Deal of a lifetime!!!

[Mike]

> 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:
> 
>>>> 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.
> 
> 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.