No, I won't, simply because you got your butt puckered about it.

Normally I simply follow the convention of the persons who posted
the message before me.

{^_-}

On 2011/06/30 10:53, Yasha Karant wrote:
> I respectfully disagree -- please jump to the bottom per your comment.
>
> On 06/30/2011 10:02 AM, Alan Bartlett wrote:
>> On 30 June 2011 17:43, Dan M.<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> On Thursday 30 June 2011 12:30:08 Alexander Hunt wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I'm not seeing any issue with threading here; all of the subject lines
>>>> in Yashas emails are relevant to the topic in the body. Just for info I
>>>> use Thunderbird as well, but the sl-security version.
>>>>
>>>> Regards to all,
>>>>
>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>> Here is the offending header portion:
>>>
>>> To: "[log in to unmask]"<[log in to unmask]>
>>> Subject: How to use a local SL 6 printer with VirtualBox MS Win XP Pro
>>> References:
>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>> <[log in to unmask]><[log in to unmask]>
>>>
>>> --> In-reply-to:<[log in to unmask]> <---
>>>
>>> Sender: [log in to unmask]
>>> Precedence: list
>>>
>>> ----
>>>
>>> It's just good practice to create a new email and not reply wiping the
>>> information out, as it not all email clients work in the same manner.
>>> Much like sending HTML messages to a listserv.
>>>
>>> /Dan
>>
>> 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
>