Phil Weldon wrote:
The point is not so much to avoid POSTING the previous messages but to avoid
forcing the previous material on every reader. Chopping up a post is even
worse - it is more difficult to tell if there is any new material, so the
reader does not even have the CHOICE of scrolling past. Times change; once
the internet was siphoned through a 2400 bits/second straw and bandwidth was
at a premium; it made sense to force the user to take on a few tasks to
speed communitcation. Now bandwidth is much greater, and is much cheaper
than the user's time, so the method of posting should accomodate the user,
not the hardware or software. After all, don't you believe computers and
software should be designed for the user and not for the computer engineer?

Phil Weldon,

The point is that people logically expect, and read, 'from statement to reply'
so putting the reply above what's replied to is out of sequence.

If the original is unnecessary to the reply then it can, and should, be snipped
for the sake of clarity. If it's useful for context then it should be in the
proper logical order: I.E. before the reply. Complex questions and replies are
more logical if the answer is inserted at the point where the specific question
being replied to took place.

To wit:

No

Does this flow properly?

3

How many geese in a gaggle? What is the first positive prime number? What is a
baker's dozen?