On 30 June 2011 18:53, Yasha Karant <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I respectfully disagree -- please jump to the bottom per your comment.
>
> On 06/30/2011 10:02 AM, Alan Bartlett wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>> Whilst nits are being picked out, will you please also desist from
>> "top posting". Trim the post to which you are replying and then
>> "bottom post".
>>
>> Alan.
>
> Under the conditions that "snipping" allows one to still get the full
> context of an email history exchange -- often with information/comments
> interspersed within the body of various preceding email posts -- then it is
> justified.  Otherwise, I find that I cannot reconstruct the detailed issues.
>  If there is no interspersed emails, then threading will (more or less)
> allow your suggestion to work.
>
> As for top or bottom posts, I and many others with whom I have discussed
> this point over a number of years prefer top posting so that one can
> immediately get to the new information, rather than going to the bottom of a
> perhaps otherwise unintelligible set of exchanges.  The issue is akin to
> that of reverse or forward chronology in a Curriculum Vitae.
>
> Yasha

In that case, your posts will automagically be sent to the null device.

It is utter arrogance for one person to assume that every other
subscriber to this list, worldwide, will remember the complex "ins and
outs" of some lesser-interesting thread. I, for one, do not have the
time to waste scrolling up and down a thread in the hope the some
semblance of logical information may be parsed from it when presented
in a topsy-turvy state.

I respectfully suggest that you take a look at the Scientific Linux
mailing list archives [1] and note the past, normal usage and contrast
with what it has become over the last few months.

Regards,
Alan.

[1] http://listserv.fnal.gov/archives/scientific-linux-users.html