a few reminders...

[illuminaudi at comcast.net]

One of the problems is that all the web-based email systems I have used have placed quoted text at the bottom automatically.  (As is the case in this post.)  I don't know how common this is in reality, just my experience.

>From a "searching the archives" point of view, I feel top posting is actually better.  If one starts with the original post, and then clicks "follow-ups," there is a natural flow from post to post.  Once you start to see quoted text, hit "follow-ups."  I don't know about other people, but I don't simply find the last post and read it precisely because of topic drift, <snip>ping, etc.  A big problem is that not everyone replies to the latest post and the threads aren't necessarily linear; top quotation _is_ a help in these circumstances.

That said I do prefer 'integrated(?) quoting' where each _question_ is bottom quoted line-by-line.  This raises the problem that each line isn't always edited to remove sentence fragments, and of course it is at odds with _both_ top and bottom quotation.

Another (worse, IMHO) problem that wasn't addressed in the original post was people who use "Re: quattro digest etc." as a subject line, and those quote the entire digest.

Just my $0.02

-M
'86 5kcstq
> On May 2, 2004, at 1:31 PM, Sean Ford wrote:
> 
> > I disagree. My statement in this email, in this context, is more 
> > important than
> > what you had previously stated in another email. The quoted text BELOW 
> > is there
> > for reference only.

<snip>

> The crux of it that makes it all work is editing the quoted material 
> down to a reasonable length instead of just letting it all hang in 
> there.
> 
> That said, I mostly top-post. Heh.
> 
> --
> Mark L. Chang

<snip>

> The whole point is that you DON'T quote 10 emails, you only quote 
> text that is relevant to your reply, as I have done here.  This is 
> what I personally care about the most...
> 
> Brett

<snippety>

> Now the challenge is to come up with a meta-conversation consisting
> entirely of haiku-like statements that can be read *in any order* and
> always have some sort of meaningful flow.  Wouldn't that be an easier
> solution?
> -- 
> Huw Powell

<snip>