Y'all, I just asked. It wasn't with malice (so no need to tell me to be nice, and I won't tell you to read generously) and it wasn't whining (what a "nice" way to put it!). I requested this common courtesy because I have a VERY tough time following the Digest, when short posts have (sometimes) ten paragraphs of text with ">" and ">>" and ">>>>>>>" between them. My biggest difficulty lies in the fact that I miss someone's contribution because it's short and "buried" between two long top-posts. I didn't advocate minimal, interleaved quoting; but that said, yes, I think it's the best way: quote only that to which one is replying, and reply beneath it (like answering a questionnaire). Aside from my own difficulties reading--and maybe I'm totally alone in having such trouble?--I also have a bit of concern for the Looney's server bandwidth and storage in the listserv archives. Sure, one top post is a minimal (i.e. a kilobyte) cost in storage. But a top-top-top-post (i.e. a lot of folks in a conversation with no culling of old posts each reply) really magnifies that cost. Multiply that by the number of recipients on the list/digest, and we have even more cost and waste, in terms of bandwidth. I always though the Rabbits/Techs/Captains put the small business needs of our patrons first? I also though "being nice" on this list allowed for respect for a member's requests, even if one has no intention of complying. Ignore me if you can't be bothered to uncheck an "Include quoted text" check box or press Ctrl+A (select all) before you type a short reply. I'm fine with that. But does my request have to be characterized as "whining"? Top posting is not a "norm"--see the Usenet reference earlier in the thread. It's a default setting in most clients because their programmers assume a business application. In business, it's common for a conversation to go on for a while and then someone needs to be added (i.e. forward). In such cases, a record of all replies makes it easier for the new person to catch up. This is a listserv with an archive. One receives (time-sorted or threaded) individual emails, making it easy to follow a conversation; or one receives a digest (time-sorted, and so kind of "threaded"); or one is looking at the archives (time-sorted or threaded). There is just no need for a per-message record of the entirety of every conversation. And (as above) such a record is very wasteful, not to mention (for poor, pitiful me) a source of LOST communications, as someone's short post is buried between the previous poster's top post and their own. Here's a relatively interesting historical take on the whys and wherefores behind the increase of top posting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Top-posting No surprises that we have Microsoft to thank for pushing its ubiquity, I suppose--Outlook is how a HUGE number of newcomers to the net discovered email, in the office. The latest wave of Blackberry/mobile emailers exacerbates the habit, as such devices often automatically top post by default, too (why that is, one can't say--following Microsoft's suit?). Moving this to Geek is sort of pointless--folks on that list already know (and, IIRC, don't top post nearly as often). Ending the "discussion" (if a request followed by a bunch of bunny stomps is a discussion) is a very good idea, at this point, I agree. I made a request. I won't do so again. With love and understanding for human foibles, weaknesses, and limitations; David