On Sun, 2014-05-18 at 00:29 +0200, Alexander Dalloz wrote: > Am 17.05.2014 23:22, schrieb Always Learning: > > > > Top posting ALWAYS makes sense when the poster has included nearly 200 > > lines of redundant and time-wasting waffle from previous posters. > > False argument. I am against TOP POSTING. But I write truthfully that it does make sense when the person, who incorporates 200 lines of redundant text in their reply, posts. I am responding to reality. Leider das "reality is not always perfect". > Top-posting is nearly always combined with fully quoting the previous > mailing. That is bsolutely unnecessary on a mailinglist and even a waste > of resources. > > Strip off redundant content! I wholly agree. > > Scrolling down - all the way down - to read a few words is time wasting > > and irritating. > > Then why not just erasing all the rubbish you don't care about? I do with my postings. > > Until posters ruthlessly exclude all redundant material, top posting > > makes sense because it is the fastest and most efficient method of > > conveying a response to others on the mail list. > > No, it just demonstrates that you as the top-poster and full quoter are > not caring for the previous communication and not caring enough for a > sane readable thread. If the top-poster just cares for his quick and > "easy" action, then why does he reply at all? I am not a "top" poster. I am an "insert" poster. > > There is an art to replying intelligently to a previous posting - > > interspersing replies to the previous poster's comments BUT ALWAYS > > EXCLUDING SURPLUS TEXT. > > full ack! Wunderbar :-) > Have you ever searched for something in a mailing list archive and then > stumbled about a thread where proper quoting and stripping the context > is wildly mixed with top-poster and full-quoter messages? It is a mess > to find the helpful arguments and content. I have experienced the same difficulties. Mfg, Paul. -- Paul. England, EU. Our systems are exclusively Centos. No Micro$oft Windoze here.