Imho, I don't have trouble following conversations; if I want context, I
just flick back through a couple of the emails with the same topic and read
up what it's about - usually one message has enough of a contextual clue so
as to give me an idea of what it's in reference to, and I work from there.
If I want to be really precise, I would snip out bits from a previous email
and reply underneath them - but in general someone having a conversation
with someone else listens to what the other person said, and then responds
to it in one go, not in a series of exact, call-and-response type lines -
it's blocks of text with ideas posited, suggestions put forth, etc... It
just seems to me like a much more natural way of holding a conversation. If
you want to read back through a tree-structure, there's always the online
archives to do that, and one can always just scroll down through the list of
incoming messages to read back on the subject.
So, for in-lining, where as you say it's responding with only one thing
needing a reply, would you not agree that it's a waste of both bytes and
time including allllllll that text (abbreviated or not) and THEN putting the
response, instead of just putting it at the top where it's instantly
viewable, especially if it's only regarding one thing from the previous
email? It's a more conversational style of correspondence, a quicker way of
viewing responses, etc.
I do heed the rules though and I do bear in mind that this list is biased
against top-posting. I'm glad that most people on here are at least willing
to be a little flexible sometimes when the need arises, if I was a blind
person and confronted with pages and pages of old message with the replies
right at the bottom, I'd get very frustrated after a while.
The style clash of top- and bottom-posting continues to provide a source of
great fascination for me... I was never part of the usenet generation; do
you think maybe that that's influencing my style choice somewhat?
Received on 2007-03-03