Leon Fauster wrote: > Am 23.07.2015 um 18:06 schrieb "Valeri Galtsev" > <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu>: >> >> On Thu, July 23, 2015 10:45 am, Johnny Hughes wrote: >>> >>> The main reason actually is chronological order. But not just for the >>> reply .. but for IN-LINE posting. >>> >>> In a discussion where you need to make points in-line and where you >>> only need some of and not all of the other posts, something that >>> happens frequently on mailing lists, it is very much easier to read >>> that type of collaborated message in chronological order. >>> >>> I mean, you don't read a book or a newspaper article or a blog post >>> from bottom to top, right? Why would you read communications from >>> bottom to top? And it is not really even bottom to top. If >>> you take 4 emails of 10 lines each (and 40 lines total) .. it >>> is 75% down to 100% (original mail)... then up to 50% and read >>> down to 75% (2nd mail), then up to 25% and read down to 50%, then >>> up to 0% and read down to 25%. What if someone made you read blog >>> posts that way, or books or newspaper articles? >> >> OK, the shortest I can re-formulate your message is: on mail lists we >> are collectively writing the book for someone else to read (much less >> communicating with each other in real time ;-) Any accepted convention >> is better than no convention: save everybody's time. Suits me (as >> far as mail lists are concerned). > > I consider email as an asynchronous communication, > therefore "book style convention" is recommended. Yup. We're writing electronic *mail*, not text messages (here, you've got 140 char, tell me everything you know....), and you don't have a two-line pager screen.... I see it as a slo-mo group conversation, and top-posting is like the person who suddenly utters a nonsequitur, louder than everyone else is speaking.... mark