asterisk users - Mar 2014 - Replying to Posts

On Thu, March 13, 2014 15:32, Kevin Larsen wrote:
>> On 13/3/14 6:27 pm, Eric Wieling wrote:
>> > This is an example of why I top post.   Who wrote what?
>>
+1-1 = 0

I do not care about where people put their replies so long as I can figure out
who is answering what.  What I do not like to read is this interminable
religious dogma about the 'natural' order of writing.  This is the
second or
third list this week in which this B.S. has shown up in my inbox.

In written business communication, in contrast to tech-speak customarily found
on mailing lists, ones answer always goes before any quoted context.  Not
because it has to, it is just that I have seldom, if ever, seen it done any
other way. And regular business communication with non-technical folk
comprises well over 75% of my daily written communication.

And while I understand the cultural motivation behind the dogma of bottom
posting I remain sceptical respecting its utility.  Is there any objective
evidence whatsoever that top or bottom posting makes any difference to the
reader's understanding of the message?  Does any rigorously determined data
exist to support that contention?  If not then this is simply a matter of
trying to impose a set of arbitrary cultural values cloaked in the guise of
technical superiority.

>> Of course, if you use a mail client that's capable of quoting
correctly,
>
>> it all works beautifully.
>>
>
> Outlook can quote correctly, but it is an all or nothing setting it would
> appear. Lotus Notes actually handles it better as there is a Reply option
> for normal email and a Reply With Internet-Style History that I use for
> this list. I don't have any problems following the rules of the list,
but
> I am fully on the side of the "Replies should go at the top"
group and
> would vote for a change in the rules.
>

And do not even start on the Chevy vs. Ford debate respecting the technical
superiority of Pine over Outlook.  GAWD... Life its too short as it is.


-- 
***          E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel          ***
James B. Byrne                mailto:ByrneJB at Harte-Lyne.ca
Harte & Lyne Limited          http://www.harte-lyne.ca
9 Brockley Drive              vox: +1 905 561 1241
Hamilton, Ontario             fax: +1 905 561 0757
Canada  L8E 3C3

If the sequence was really important, we would just move this whole list 
to a LinkedIn group and have a much better environment for following 
threads and managing the profiles of the group's members.
This is a pretty old system of managing peer support but it always takes 
a while to get legacy systems replaced.

Ron

On 14/03/2014 9:52 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
> On Thu, March 13, 2014 15:32, Kevin Larsen wrote:
>>> On 13/3/14 6:27 pm, Eric Wieling wrote:
>>>> This is an example of why I top post.   Who wrote what?
> +1-1 = 0
>
> I do not care about where people put their replies so long as I can figure
out
> who is answering what.  What I do not like to read is this interminable
> religious dogma about the 'natural' order of writing.  This is the
second or
> third list this week in which this B.S. has shown up in my inbox.
>
> In written business communication, in contrast to tech-speak customarily
found
> on mailing lists, ones answer always goes before any quoted context.  Not
> because it has to, it is just that I have seldom, if ever, seen it done any
> other way. And regular business communication with non-technical folk
> comprises well over 75% of my daily written communication.
>
> And while I understand the cultural motivation behind the dogma of bottom
> posting I remain sceptical respecting its utility.  Is there any objective
> evidence whatsoever that top or bottom posting makes any difference to the
> reader's understanding of the message?  Does any rigorously determined
data
> exist to support that contention?  If not then this is simply a matter of
> trying to impose a set of arbitrary cultural values cloaked in the guise of
> technical superiority.
>
>
>>> Of course, if you use a mail client that's capable of quoting
correctly,
>>> it all works beautifully.
>>>
>> Outlook can quote correctly, but it is an all or nothing setting it
would
>> appear. Lotus Notes actually handles it better as there is a Reply
option
>> for normal email and a Reply With Internet-Style History that I use for
>> this list. I don't have any problems following the rules of the
list, but
>> I am fully on the side of the "Replies should go at the top"
group and
>> would vote for a change in the rules.
>>
>
> And do not even start on the Chevy vs. Ford debate respecting the technical
> superiority of Pine over Outlook.  GAWD... Life its too short as it is.
>
>

-- 
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler at artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102