On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Tim <ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 23:09 +0000, Pedro Francisco wrote:
> Right thread though,
May be (as few of us can remember the origins of this thread), but
you've replied at the wrong point. By this time the conversation has
changed, and your reply has nothing to do with the message that you've
replied to. And that's what replies should be (one message in reply to
another *particular* message). You need to go further back, and make
your reply to the right place. It's the only way that it'll make any
sense to anybody reading it.
I'm not following your point. I replied to the first message, the one
which started the thread.
I did make a mistake and top-posted, which damaged the context but if
you are reading the mailing list on Thunderbird or some other mail
client which supports threaded view, you'll see I replied to the right
message.
You can argue that to those who read in Gmail and such the message
will appear at the bottom. That is a valid point but I can't do
anything about it besides bottom-posting to keep the context.
I saw a bad review, quickly scanned the thread to see if anyone else
had seen a pattern on what was working badly (networking related) and
decided to add my information, namely the peripheral possibly
responsible and a possible solution which I'm occasionaly working on.
There was no other solution for me to do what I did, except to avoid
the top-posting which indeed was an error on my part.