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
Reasonably Related Threads
- Samba 4.7.2 + bind on Fedora 27: samba_dlz: spnego update failed
- Samba 4.7.2 + bind on Fedora 27: samba_dlz: spnego update failed
- Samba 4.7.2 + bind on Fedora 27: samba_dlz: spnego update failed
- Samba 4.7.2 + bind on Fedora 27: samba_dlz: spnego update failed
- Samba 4.7.2 + bind on Fedora 27: samba_dlz: spnego update failed