Les Mikesell wrote: > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:06 AM, mark <m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote: >> On 05/17/14 18:29, Alexander Dalloz wrote: >>> Am 17.05.2014 23:22, schrieb Always Learning: <snip> > I'ts not really a bad thing in the context of 1<->1 messages and > business communications where you are interested enough to not need > the reply put in context for you but might want the audit-trail of the > whole previous conversation for reference. > > But mail list messages go to a lot of people who have only a passing > interest and unless they are a participant in the thread, may not have > seen it before to understand the context - or they may have found it > in an archive, looking for the same answers. So, it you want anyone > to pay attention, the message has to make sense on its own with > irrelevant cruft removed and the new parts place in the correct > context. What Mike says, above, is *the* most significant argument, and, IMO, trumps all counter-arguments. This *is* a mailing list. Frequently, for example, I'll be busy, or a thread doesn't seem interesting, until I see something that leads me to look in on it... and if it's filled with top-posted unreadable threads, even if I might have some really helpful suggestions, I usually don't *want* to read enough to make them, because I have no idea what's been suggested or discounted before, and I *ain't* gonna read down, up, down, up, up, down.... Top post if you want... but don't expect cooperation or help. mark