4) forced deletion of most of the quoted text can remove context for the next reader forcing them to try and track back the message chain to find the content assuming they have the previous messages.
This can be most important, especially when there is a danger of mis-quoting, mis-paraphrasing, or deleting context that is irrelevant to the quoter, but very important to the writer of the quoted text. For several years now I have used the format exemplified in this message, where I quote text that I am addressing (which I may also highlight in its original context), then write my response below it, and then include (usually) the entire message below my signature. That way I always preserve the immediate context of my quotes text, as well as the preceding exchange(s), which may be relevant. Only when the tail end is totally irrelevant do I remove the irrelevant tail. I am on many mailing lists with people who top-post, who don't know how to edit, and who often don't know what a Subject header is, or how to edit it, or how to start a new message thread, or how to find the email address of a sender, or how to locate previous messages, or how to find text in messages. Nevertheless, these are humans whose dignity I must respect, but who are not able to understand, to learn, or to change "technical" matters. Yet, they do contribute to the best of their ability to the dialog, and their contributions may be valuable. It's a small accommodation to make, and since I am able, I do it. Technically it is far better to keep previous messages so that one can find and review previous context. Unfortunately that is not something that "non-technical" people will or can do. Perhaps the *real* problem is that protracted group conversations on email lists are limited by the quoting mechanism of referencing prior text, and a design assumption legacy of offline, slow, and asynchronous, and also paper / printer terminals. Imagine if we had highly intelligent email list presentation software that displays the messages properly sorted, scrolled to the newest unread. With hyperlinks of included text. (Unrealistic, I know.) -- Peter Renzland@gmail.com
On Mar 16, 2016, at 16:13, Alvin Starr <alvin@netvel.net> wrote:
On 03/16/2016 11:16 AM, Giles Orr wrote:
On 15 March 2016 at 23:44, William Park <opengeometry@yahoo.ca> wrote: [snip] just accept that we live in an imperfect world.
Given that the list defined preference is to post at the bottom I will do this as often as I remember and as much as possible make sure I remove most of the quoted text.
That being said here are my arguments for replies at the top. 1) It is easier on people with accessibility issues( I checked with someone who handles making accessible documents for the Ont. Govt.). 2) mail readers that I have seen and used will open the message at the top of the message so that I will need to scroll down through the message to get to the reply. This is exacerbated when working on a small screen device like a smart phone. Even if mail readers opened at the bottom they would then be showing the signature block and possibly not exentding up into the replay. 3)bottom posting sets up massively editing the quoted text as manditory. 4)forced deletion of most of the quoted text can remove context for the next reader forcing them to try and track back the message chain to find the content assuming they have the previous messages.
I have deliberately chosen to fix Thunderbird so that it puts replies at the top because I am convinced that for most people who I interact with having immediately visible messages and uncensored content are important features.
There is some logic and reasoning behind my choice and all are free to disagree/disregard them.
-- Alvin Starr || voice: (905)513-7688 Netvel Inc. || Cell: (416)806-0133 alvin@netvel.net ||
--- Talk Mailing List talk@gtalug.org https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk