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. -- LF