Re: replying at the bottom

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
98 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: replying at the bottom

Mike Easter-2
Gabor wrote:
> Actually reply at top is standard for business e-mail where it is
> assumed that you only need to read the quoted mails below for
> reference, and otherwise are only interested in the latest message.

That is to say, that some significant number of corporate policies were
TOFU, text-over full-quote-under corporate email.  Since the corp is the
boss, the employees were supposed to follow the email policy.

The desired result was that the new reply material was put on top, while
whatever had been said before that led to the reply was left completely
intact, unedited, untrimmed, uninterspersed, serving as an intact reference.

MS 'embraced and extended' those corporate policies in the MS way, thus
inducing more corporate email to follow the 'MS Corporate (TOFU) Way'.

Typically a scenario might be: bigboss to middlemanagers to team
captains to team members back to team captain back to middleman.

Then maybe a new email middlemanager to bigboss.

There are a number of 'issues' that make that TOFU business not at all
appropriate for news group conversations, where the best structure for
the dialog is trimmed conversational order, and the reference mechanism
is the References line.

TOFU also suffers from a lack of direct context for the new material.
So, if a tofu policy is being followed, it is necessary for the new
material to somehow create its own context for the new material, since
*assuming* some (missing) words which can only be found 'down below' are
to apply to the words up above which are *trying* to refer to down below
words need to be 're-placed' in the new material above.

In trimmed conversational newsgroup style, those old words are
immediately preceding the new words which refer to them, making for a
more efficient conversation.

To .general & Tb, f/ups to .general.

--
Mike Easter
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: replying at the bottom

W3BNR
On 7/8/2014 1:58 PM Mike Easter submitted the following:

> Gabor wrote:
>> Actually reply at top is standard for business e-mail where it is
>> assumed that you only need to read the quoted mails below for
>> reference, and otherwise are only interested in the latest message.
>
> That is to say, that some significant number of corporate policies were
> TOFU, text-over full-quote-under corporate email.  Since the corp is the
> boss, the employees were supposed to follow the email policy.
>
> The desired result was that the new reply material was put on top, while
> whatever had been said before that led to the reply was left completely
> intact, unedited, untrimmed, uninterspersed, serving as an intact
> reference.
>
> MS 'embraced and extended' those corporate policies in the MS way, thus
> inducing more corporate email to follow the 'MS Corporate (TOFU) Way'.
>
> Typically a scenario might be: bigboss to middlemanagers to team
> captains to team members back to team captain back to middleman.
>
> Then maybe a new email middlemanager to bigboss.
>
> There are a number of 'issues' that make that TOFU business not at all
> appropriate for news group conversations, where the best structure for
> the dialog is trimmed conversational order, and the reference mechanism
> is the References line.
>
> TOFU also suffers from a lack of direct context for the new material.
> So, if a tofu policy is being followed, it is necessary for the new
> material to somehow create its own context for the new material, since
> *assuming* some (missing) words which can only be found 'down below' are
> to apply to the words up above which are *trying* to refer to down below
> words need to be 're-placed' in the new material above.
>
> In trimmed conversational newsgroup style, those old words are
> immediately preceding the new words which refer to them, making for a
> more efficient conversation.
>
> To .general & Tb, f/ups to .general.
>

Us oldtimers remember Timo and here's what he's got to say:

http://lipas.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/quote.html

--
Ed, W3BNR
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: replying at the bottom

s|b-2
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 14:02:37 -0400, W3BNR wrote:

> Us oldtimers remember Timo and here's what he's got to say:
>
> http://lipas.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/quote.html

I prefer Dirk Nimmich translated:
<https://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html>

(The same link is found at the bottom or your URL.)

--
s|b
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: replying at the bottom

Mike Easter-2
In reply to this post by W3BNR
W3BNR wrote:
> Mike Easter:
>> Gabor wrote:
>>> Actually reply at top is standard for business e-mail

>> some significant number of corporate policies were
>> TOFU, text-over full-quote-under corporate email.  Since the corp is the
>> boss, the employees were supposed to follow the email policy.

>> There are a number of 'issues' that make that TOFU business not at all
>> appropriate for news group conversations, where the best structure for
>> the dialog is trimmed conversational order, and the reference mechanism
>> is the References line.

> Us oldtimers remember Timo and here's what he's got to say:
>
> http://lipas.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/quote.html

Prof. Timo Salmi is a valuable usenet etiquette resource.

He also mentions the corporate email:

// Are there any situations where top posting is warranted?

I would say, on the Usenet news, simply no!

However, in business or other professional email correspondence the
situation is more involved. If a discussion is prolonged and especially
if other parties are later drawn into the discussion, for full
documentation (sometimes involving official or even legal purposes) top
posting could be considered an operational, valid alternative. Much
depends on your office practices. //


Some subset of people first started emailing in a TOFU-policy corporate
environment, using OE or OL.  That email practice then extended to all
their email and when they engaged in usenet, they 'wanted' to keep
posting the same way.

Additionally 'bad' untrimmed bottom posting usenet practices by another
subset of people convinced them that there were only two ways to post;
the acceptable and familiar corporate TOFU-email way or the bad
untrimmed bottom posting way, which didn't provide context any better
than TOFU and it was more trouble to read.  So they argued for untrimmed
top over untrimmed bottom, both of which are bad because of the context
problem, and long threads of untrimmed bottom posting are very bad, so
in that sense I agree with that particular argument of the top posters.

Naturally the right/best most contextual way is trimmed conversational
style.



--
Mike Easter
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: replying at the bottom

»Q«
In reply to this post by Mike Easter-2
In <news:[hidden email]>,
Mike Easter <[hidden email]> wrote:

> That is to say, that some significant number of corporate policies
> were TOFU, text-over full-quote-under corporate email.  Since the
> corp is the boss, the employees were supposed to follow the email
> policy.
>
> The desired result was that the new reply material was put on top,
> while whatever had been said before that led to the reply was left
> completely intact, unedited, untrimmed, uninterspersed, serving as an
> intact reference.
>
> MS 'embraced and extended' those corporate policies in the MS way,
> thus inducing more corporate email to follow the 'MS Corporate (TOFU)
> Way'.

Are you sure the number of corporations mandating that was significant
*before* Microsoft embraced it?  I can't find any references other than
<http://books.google.com/books?id=umvBESswHH8C&pg=RA5-PA241&lpg=RA5-PA241&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false>,
which says,

  It used to be taboo to reply at the top of a message ("top-posting")
  until Microsoft made it the default setting.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: replying at the bottom

Mike Easter-2
»Q« wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:
>
>> That is to say, that some significant number of corporate policies
>> were TOFU, text-over full-quote-under corporate email.

>> MS 'embraced and extended' those corporate policies in the MS way,
>> thus inducing more corporate email to follow the 'MS Corporate (TOFU)
>> Way'.
>
> Are you sure the number of corporations mandating that was significant
> *before* Microsoft embraced it?  I can't find any references other than
> <http://books.google.com/books?id=umvBESswHH8C&pg=RA5-PA241&lpg=RA5-PA241&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false>,
> which says,
>
>    It used to be taboo to reply at the top of a message ("top-posting")
>    until Microsoft made it the default setting.

I found some interesting old quotes (including one by me to a spamcop
newsgroup now referenced in a wikipedia article) while I was looking
around to see if I could find anything addressing my position, that MS
'took up' existing corporate TOFU, big time.

Here's a snip from an article by Dan Tobias:
http://mailformat.dan.info/quoting/top-posting.html   This is an
environment where the "top posting" style was a natural development
(whether or not its introduction was actually an evil Microsoft
conspiracy -- actually, I think it originated in corporate LAN email
systems predating the commercial Internet).


--
Mike Easter
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: replying at the bottom

Ray_Net
In reply to this post by »Q«
»Q« wrote, On 09/07/2014 03:32:

> In <news:[hidden email]>,
> Mike Easter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> That is to say, that some significant number of corporate policies
>> were TOFU, text-over full-quote-under corporate email.  Since the
>> corp is the boss, the employees were supposed to follow the email
>> policy.
>>
>> The desired result was that the new reply material was put on top,
>> while whatever had been said before that led to the reply was left
>> completely intact, unedited, untrimmed, uninterspersed, serving as an
>> intact reference.
>>
>> MS 'embraced and extended' those corporate policies in the MS way,
>> thus inducing more corporate email to follow the 'MS Corporate (TOFU)
>> Way'.
> Are you sure the number of corporations mandating that was significant
> *before* Microsoft embraced it?  I can't find any references other than
> <http://books.google.com/books?id=umvBESswHH8C&pg=RA5-PA241&lpg=RA5-PA241&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false>,
> which says,
>
>    It used to be taboo to reply at the top of a message ("top-posting")
>    until Microsoft made it the default setting.
Reply at the top have nothing to do with microsoft - IT'S NEEDED if you
work in a corp ...
Anyway i hate people truncate what was saying then reply a wrong reply.
It's always better to have ALL the previous text posted after my reply,
so the guy is not obliged to read all the history, he can, but he is not
obliged to read all before to be able to see the answer.
Posting bottom is a stupidity ! (but i do here because everbody in
usenet do it - beurk ! :-) )
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: replying at the bottom

Ed Mullen-9
Ray_Net pounded out :

> »Q« wrote, On 09/07/2014 03:32:
>> In <news:[hidden email]>,
>> Mike Easter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> That is to say, that some significant number of corporate policies
>>> were TOFU, text-over full-quote-under corporate email.  Since the
>>> corp is the boss, the employees were supposed to follow the email
>>> policy.
>>>
>>> The desired result was that the new reply material was put on top,
>>> while whatever had been said before that led to the reply was left
>>> completely intact, unedited, untrimmed, uninterspersed, serving as an
>>> intact reference.
>>>
>>> MS 'embraced and extended' those corporate policies in the MS way,
>>> thus inducing more corporate email to follow the 'MS Corporate (TOFU)
>>> Way'.
>> Are you sure the number of corporations mandating that was significant
>> *before* Microsoft embraced it?  I can't find any references other than
>> <http://books.google.com/books?id=umvBESswHH8C&pg=RA5-PA241&lpg=RA5-PA241&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false>,
>>
>> which says,
>>
>>    It used to be taboo to reply at the top of a message ("top-posting")
>>    until Microsoft made it the default setting.
> Reply at the top have nothing to do with microsoft - IT'S NEEDED if you
> work in a corp ...
> Anyway i hate people truncate what was saying then reply a wrong reply.
> It's always better to have ALL the previous text posted after my reply,
> so the guy is not obliged to read all the history, he can, but he is not
> obliged to read all before to be able to see the answer.
> Posting bottom is a stupidity ! (but i do here because everbody in
> usenet do it - beurk ! :-) )

Nobody *has* to read quoted material in a post/email that is
bottom-posted.  I don't unless I want to refer back to it.  When I enter
a newsgroup I click in the message pane and hit the END button.  That
jumps to the bottom instantly. After reading the post I hit the Space
Bar which jumps to the next unread message or the next group.  Simple.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
Why do people keep $50k worth of cars in the driveway and $1k of junk in
the garage?
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: replying at the bottom

Ray_Net
Ed Mullen wrote, On 09/07/2014 16:04:

> Ray_Net pounded out :
>> »Q« wrote, On 09/07/2014 03:32:
>>> In <news:[hidden email]>,
>>> Mike Easter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That is to say, that some significant number of corporate policies
>>>> were TOFU, text-over full-quote-under corporate email. Since the
>>>> corp is the boss, the employees were supposed to follow the email
>>>> policy.
>>>>
>>>> The desired result was that the new reply material was put on top,
>>>> while whatever had been said before that led to the reply was left
>>>> completely intact, unedited, untrimmed, uninterspersed, serving as an
>>>> intact reference.
>>>>
>>>> MS 'embraced and extended' those corporate policies in the MS way,
>>>> thus inducing more corporate email to follow the 'MS Corporate (TOFU)
>>>> Way'.
>>> Are you sure the number of corporations mandating that was significant
>>> *before* Microsoft embraced it?  I can't find any references other than
>>> <http://books.google.com/books?id=umvBESswHH8C&pg=RA5-PA241&lpg=RA5-PA241&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false>,
>>>
>>>
>>> which says,
>>>
>>>    It used to be taboo to reply at the top of a message ("top-posting")
>>>    until Microsoft made it the default setting.
>> Reply at the top have nothing to do with microsoft - IT'S NEEDED if you
>> work in a corp ...
>> Anyway i hate people truncate what was saying then reply a wrong reply.
>> It's always better to have ALL the previous text posted after my reply,
>> so the guy is not obliged to read all the history, he can, but he is not
>> obliged to read all before to be able to see the answer.
>> Posting bottom is a stupidity ! (but i do here because everbody in
>> usenet do it - beurk ! :-) )
>
> Nobody *has* to read quoted material in a post/email that is
> bottom-posted.  I don't unless I want to refer back to it.  When I
> enter a newsgroup I click in the message pane and hit the END button.  
> That jumps to the bottom instantly. After reading the post I hit the
> Space Bar which jumps to the next unread message or the next group.  
> Simple.
>
With the reply at the top, i don't need to hit the END button :-) and
all the posts are in a correct order.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: replying at the bottom

Ken Springer
On 7/9/14 9:46 AM, Ray_Net wrote:

> Ed Mullen wrote, On 09/07/2014 16:04:
>> Ray_Net pounded out :
>>> »Q« wrote, On 09/07/2014 03:32:
>>>> In <news:[hidden email]>,
>>>> Mike Easter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That is to say, that some significant number of corporate policies
>>>>> were TOFU, text-over full-quote-under corporate email. Since the
>>>>> corp is the boss, the employees were supposed to follow the email
>>>>> policy.
>>>>>
>>>>> The desired result was that the new reply material was put on top,
>>>>> while whatever had been said before that led to the reply was left
>>>>> completely intact, unedited, untrimmed, uninterspersed, serving as an
>>>>> intact reference.
>>>>>
>>>>> MS 'embraced and extended' those corporate policies in the MS way,
>>>>> thus inducing more corporate email to follow the 'MS Corporate (TOFU)
>>>>> Way'.
>>>> Are you sure the number of corporations mandating that was significant
>>>> *before* Microsoft embraced it?  I can't find any references other than
>>>> <http://books.google.com/books?id=umvBESswHH8C&pg=RA5-PA241&lpg=RA5-PA241&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false>,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> which says,
>>>>
>>>>     It used to be taboo to reply at the top of a message ("top-posting")
>>>>     until Microsoft made it the default setting.
>>> Reply at the top have nothing to do with microsoft - IT'S NEEDED if you
>>> work in a corp ...
>>> Anyway i hate people truncate what was saying then reply a wrong reply.
>>> It's always better to have ALL the previous text posted after my reply,
>>> so the guy is not obliged to read all the history, he can, but he is not
>>> obliged to read all before to be able to see the answer.
>>> Posting bottom is a stupidity ! (but i do here because everbody in
>>> usenet do it - beurk ! :-) )
>>
>> Nobody *has* to read quoted material in a post/email that is
>> bottom-posted.  I don't unless I want to refer back to it.  When I
>> enter a newsgroup I click in the message pane and hit the END button.
>> That jumps to the bottom instantly. After reading the post I hit the
>> Space Bar which jumps to the next unread message or the next group.
>> Simple.
>>
> With the reply at the top, i don't need to hit the END button :-) and
> all the posts are in a correct order.

But, it's like reading a book backwards.  Lots more scrolling if you
wish to read series of posts sequentially.   :-)


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.6.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
      and it's gone!"
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: replying at the bottom

Mike Easter-2
Lotsa chatter about top vs bottom posting untrimmed no contextualization.

No good.

The important action is the trimming and the contextualization, not top
vs bottom, neither of which are any good for usenet.

--
Mike Easter
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: replying at the bottom

Ken Springer
On 7/9/14 12:44 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
> Lotsa chatter about top vs bottom posting untrimmed no contextualization.
>
> No good.
>
> The important action is the trimming and the contextualization, not top
> vs bottom, neither of which are any good for usenet.

Agreed, but that wasn't the subject.   :-)

Not mentioned about trimming, and this could include attributions, is
sometimes/eventually too much is trimmed.  Then you have software like
Windows Live Mail that apparently can quote correctly to save its soul.
  And software that doesn't correctly deal with cross posted messages
and marking them as read.  Thunderbird broke this years ago, and they
apparently aren't inclined to fix it.


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.6.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
      and it's gone!"
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: replying at the bottom

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by Ray_Net
On 7/9/2014 10:46 AM, Ray_Net wrote:

> Ed Mullen wrote, On 09/07/2014 16:04:
>> Ray_Net pounded out :
>>> »Q« wrote, On 09/07/2014 03:32:
>>>> In <news:[hidden email]>,
>>>> Mike Easter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That is to say, that some significant number of corporate policies
>>>>> were TOFU, text-over full-quote-under corporate email. Since the
>>>>> corp is the boss, the employees were supposed to follow the email
>>>>> policy.
>>>>>
>>>>> The desired result was that the new reply material was put on top,
>>>>> while whatever had been said before that led to the reply was left
>>>>> completely intact, unedited, untrimmed, uninterspersed, serving as an
>>>>> intact reference.
>>>>>
>>>>> MS 'embraced and extended' those corporate policies in the MS way,
>>>>> thus inducing more corporate email to follow the 'MS Corporate (TOFU)
>>>>> Way'.
>>>> Are you sure the number of corporations mandating that was significant
>>>> *before* Microsoft embraced it?  I can't find any references other than
>>>> <http://books.google.com/books?id=umvBESswHH8C&pg=RA5-PA241&lpg=RA5-PA241&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false>,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> which says,
>>>>
>>>>    It used to be taboo to reply at the top of a message ("top-posting")
>>>>    until Microsoft made it the default setting.
>>> Reply at the top have nothing to do with microsoft - IT'S NEEDED if you
>>> work in a corp ...
>>> Anyway i hate people truncate what was saying then reply a wrong reply.
>>> It's always better to have ALL the previous text posted after my reply,
>>> so the guy is not obliged to read all the history, he can, but he is not
>>> obliged to read all before to be able to see the answer.
>>> Posting bottom is a stupidity ! (but i do here because everbody in
>>> usenet do it - beurk ! :-) )
>>
>> Nobody *has* to read quoted material in a post/email that is
>> bottom-posted.  I don't unless I want to refer back to it.  When I
>> enter a newsgroup I click in the message pane and hit the END button.
>> That jumps to the bottom instantly. After reading the post I hit the
>> Space Bar which jumps to the next unread message or the next group.
>> Simple.
>>
> With the reply at the top, i don't need to hit the END button :-) and
> all the posts are in a correct order.
Only if you conventionally read text from bottom to top.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: replying at the bottom

J. P. Gilliver (John)
In reply to this post by Mike Easter-2
In message <[hidden email]>, Mike Easter
<[hidden email]> writes:
[]

>I found some interesting old quotes (including one by me to a spamcop
>newsgroup now referenced in a wikipedia article) while I was looking
>around to see if I could find anything addressing my position, that MS
>'took up' existing corporate TOFU, big time.
>
>Here's a snip from an article by Dan Tobias:
>http://mailformat.dan.info/quoting/top-posting.html   This is an
>environment where the "top posting" style was a natural development
>(whether or not its introduction was actually an evil Microsoft
>conspiracy -- actually, I think it originated in corporate LAN email
>systems predating the commercial Internet).
>
>
I sometimes think news/email clients started out by putting the cursor
above the quoted text, _not_ to encourage top-posting, but to encourage
snipping - but did not explain this in the help and manuals (which,
around that long-ago time, people did actually sometimes read).

Of course, when OE (for example) started putting the cursor at the top,
_then the signature before the quoted text_, they'd obviously given up
on the snippage idea.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

After all is said and done, usually more is said.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: replying at the bottom

»Q«
In reply to this post by Ray_Net
Why wouldn't you need to use that key?  Anybody reading this top-post
should use that key just to find out WTF key I'm talking about.  ;-)

In <news:[hidden email]>,
Ray_Net <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Ed Mullen wrote, On 09/07/2014 16:04:
> > Ray_Net pounded out :
> >> »Q« wrote, On 09/07/2014 03:32:
> >>> In <news:[hidden email]>,
> >>> Mike Easter <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> That is to say, that some significant number of corporate
> >>>> policies were TOFU, text-over full-quote-under corporate email.
> >>>> Since the corp is the boss, the employees were supposed to
> >>>> follow the email policy.
> >>>>
> >>>> The desired result was that the new reply material was put on
> >>>> top, while whatever had been said before that led to the reply
> >>>> was left completely intact, unedited, untrimmed, uninterspersed,
> >>>> serving as an intact reference.
> >>>>
> >>>> MS 'embraced and extended' those corporate policies in the MS
> >>>> way, thus inducing more corporate email to follow the 'MS
> >>>> Corporate (TOFU) Way'.
> >>> Are you sure the number of corporations mandating that was
> >>> significant *before* Microsoft embraced it?  I can't find any
> >>> references other than
> >>> <http://books.google.com/books?id=umvBESswHH8C&pg=RA5-PA241&lpg=RA5-PA241&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false>,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> which says,
> >>>
> >>>    It used to be taboo to reply at the top of a message
> >>> ("top-posting") until Microsoft made it the default setting.
> >> Reply at the top have nothing to do with microsoft - IT'S NEEDED
> >> if you work in a corp ...
> >> Anyway i hate people truncate what was saying then reply a wrong
> >> reply. It's always better to have ALL the previous text posted
> >> after my reply, so the guy is not obliged to read all the history,
> >> he can, but he is not obliged to read all before to be able to see
> >> the answer. Posting bottom is a stupidity ! (but i do here because
> >> everbody in usenet do it - beurk ! :-) )
> >
> > Nobody *has* to read quoted material in a post/email that is
> > bottom-posted.  I don't unless I want to refer back to it.  When I
> > enter a newsgroup I click in the message pane and hit the END
> > button. That jumps to the bottom instantly. After reading the post
> > I hit the Space Bar which jumps to the next unread message or the
> > next group. Simple.
> >
> With the reply at the top, i don't need to hit the END button :-) and
> all the posts are in a correct order.



_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: replying at the bottom

Ed Mullen-9
In reply to this post by Ray_Net
Ray_Net pounded out :

> Ed Mullen wrote, On 09/07/2014 16:04:
>> Ray_Net pounded out :
>>> »Q« wrote, On 09/07/2014 03:32:
>>>> In <news:[hidden email]>,
>>>> Mike Easter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That is to say, that some significant number of corporate policies
>>>>> were TOFU, text-over full-quote-under corporate email. Since the
>>>>> corp is the boss, the employees were supposed to follow the email
>>>>> policy.
>>>>>
>>>>> The desired result was that the new reply material was put on top,
>>>>> while whatever had been said before that led to the reply was left
>>>>> completely intact, unedited, untrimmed, uninterspersed, serving as an
>>>>> intact reference.
>>>>>
>>>>> MS 'embraced and extended' those corporate policies in the MS way,
>>>>> thus inducing more corporate email to follow the 'MS Corporate (TOFU)
>>>>> Way'.
>>>> Are you sure the number of corporations mandating that was significant
>>>> *before* Microsoft embraced it?  I can't find any references other than
>>>> <http://books.google.com/books?id=umvBESswHH8C&pg=RA5-PA241&lpg=RA5-PA241&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false>,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> which says,
>>>>
>>>>    It used to be taboo to reply at the top of a message ("top-posting")
>>>>    until Microsoft made it the default setting.
>>> Reply at the top have nothing to do with microsoft - IT'S NEEDED if you
>>> work in a corp ...
>>> Anyway i hate people truncate what was saying then reply a wrong reply.
>>> It's always better to have ALL the previous text posted after my reply,
>>> so the guy is not obliged to read all the history, he can, but he is not
>>> obliged to read all before to be able to see the answer.
>>> Posting bottom is a stupidity ! (but i do here because everbody in
>>> usenet do it - beurk ! :-) )
>>
>> Nobody *has* to read quoted material in a post/email that is
>> bottom-posted.  I don't unless I want to refer back to it.  When I
>> enter a newsgroup I click in the message pane and hit the END button.
>> That jumps to the bottom instantly. After reading the post I hit the
>> Space Bar which jumps to the next unread message or the next group.
>> Simple.
>>
> With the reply at the top, i don't need to hit the END button :-) and
> all the posts are in a correct order.

Well, regardless of differing opinions, you're doing the right thing
here:  Bottom posting or interspersing.

Thanks.


I'll always vote for what makes the most sense in a given post/reply.
And convention in a given group to conform to the group ethos.

Couldn't care less about business email.  Haven't been employed or sent
a corporate email since 1996. Although, having been online since about
1983, I was a groundbreaker.  And we always interspersed for logic and
follow-ability.  Top or bottom when not doing that?  Nobody cared.
Again, hit the END key if need be.  Or HOME.  The content was what was
important (and is) and who the hell cares how you get there as long as
it's not onerous?  Geez, Louise!  So much ado about nothing.

Meh!





--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
Photons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: replying at the bottom

Ed Mullen-9
In reply to this post by Ken Springer
Ken Springer pounded out :

> On 7/9/14 12:44 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
>> Lotsa chatter about top vs bottom posting untrimmed no contextualization.
>>
>> No good.
>>
>> The important action is the trimming and the contextualization, not top
>> vs bottom, neither of which are any good for usenet.
>
> Agreed, but that wasn't the subject.   :-)
>
> Not mentioned about trimming, and this could include attributions, is
> sometimes/eventually too much is trimmed.  Then you have software like
> Windows Live Mail that apparently can quote correctly to save its soul.
>   And software that doesn't correctly deal with cross posted messages
> and marking them as read.  Thunderbird broke this years ago, and they
> apparently aren't inclined to fix it.
>
>

Indeed.  I frequently ignore/skip over replies because there is little
or no context.  People who shred threads, for me, are doomed to be NOT read.

I'd much rather have to skip over un-trimmed stuff than have to go
rooting back through a thread to figure out what's going on.  And, in
fact, 99.9% of the time I won't.  I'll ignore the whold post.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
I'm not schizophrenic, and neither am I.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: replying at the bottom

Ed Mullen-9
In reply to this post by »Q«
»Q« pounded out :

> Why wouldn't you need to use that key?  Anybody reading this top-post
> should use that key just to find out WTF key I'm talking about.  ;-)
>
> In <news:[hidden email]>,
> Ray_Net <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Ed Mullen wrote, On 09/07/2014 16:04:
>>> Ray_Net pounded out :
>>>> »Q« wrote, On 09/07/2014 03:32:
>>>>> In <news:[hidden email]>,
>>>>> Mike Easter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That is to say, that some significant number of corporate
>>>>>> policies were TOFU, text-over full-quote-under corporate email.
>>>>>> Since the corp is the boss, the employees were supposed to
>>>>>> follow the email policy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The desired result was that the new reply material was put on
>>>>>> top, while whatever had been said before that led to the reply
>>>>>> was left completely intact, unedited, untrimmed, uninterspersed,
>>>>>> serving as an intact reference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MS 'embraced and extended' those corporate policies in the MS
>>>>>> way, thus inducing more corporate email to follow the 'MS
>>>>>> Corporate (TOFU) Way'.
>>>>> Are you sure the number of corporations mandating that was
>>>>> significant *before* Microsoft embraced it?  I can't find any
>>>>> references other than
>>>>> <http://books.google.com/books?id=umvBESswHH8C&pg=RA5-PA241&lpg=RA5-PA241&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false>,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> which says,
>>>>>
>>>>>     It used to be taboo to reply at the top of a message
>>>>> ("top-posting") until Microsoft made it the default setting.
>>>> Reply at the top have nothing to do with microsoft - IT'S NEEDED
>>>> if you work in a corp ...
>>>> Anyway i hate people truncate what was saying then reply a wrong
>>>> reply. It's always better to have ALL the previous text posted
>>>> after my reply, so the guy is not obliged to read all the history,
>>>> he can, but he is not obliged to read all before to be able to see
>>>> the answer. Posting bottom is a stupidity ! (but i do here because
>>>> everbody in usenet do it - beurk ! :-) )
>>>
>>> Nobody *has* to read quoted material in a post/email that is
>>> bottom-posted.  I don't unless I want to refer back to it.  When I
>>> enter a newsgroup I click in the message pane and hit the END
>>> button. That jumps to the bottom instantly. After reading the post
>>> I hit the Space Bar which jumps to the next unread message or the
>>> next group. Simple.
>>>
>> With the reply at the top, i don't need to hit the END button :-) and
>> all the posts are in a correct order.
>
>
>

Yeah.  I had to jump around to figure that one out!  :-D



--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
I'm not schizophrenic, and neither am I.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: replying at the bottom

Erness Wild
In reply to this post by »Q«
»Q« wrote:

> Why wouldn't you need to use that key?  Anybody reading this top-post
> should use that key just to find out WTF key I'm talking about.  ;-)
>
> In <news:[hidden email]>,
> Ray_Net <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Ed Mullen wrote, On 09/07/2014 16:04:
>>> Ray_Net pounded out :
>>>> »Q« wrote, On 09/07/2014 03:32:
>>>>> In <news:[hidden email]>,
>>>>> Mike Easter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That is to say, that some significant number of corporate
>>>>>> policies were TOFU, text-over full-quote-under corporate email.
>>>>>> Since the corp is the boss, the employees were supposed to
>>>>>> follow the email policy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The desired result was that the new reply material was put on
>>>>>> top, while whatever had been said before that led to the reply
>>>>>> was left completely intact, unedited, untrimmed, uninterspersed,
>>>>>> serving as an intact reference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MS 'embraced and extended' those corporate policies in the MS
>>>>>> way, thus inducing more corporate email to follow the 'MS
>>>>>> Corporate (TOFU) Way'.
>>>>> Are you sure the number of corporations mandating that was
>>>>> significant *before* Microsoft embraced it?  I can't find any
>>>>> references other than
>>>>> <http://books.google.com/books?id=umvBESswHH8C&pg=RA5-PA241&lpg=RA5-PA241&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false>,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> which says,
>>>>>
>>>>>     It used to be taboo to reply at the top of a message
>>>>> ("top-posting") until Microsoft made it the default setting.
>>>> Reply at the top have nothing to do with microsoft - IT'S NEEDED
>>>> if you work in a corp ...
>>>> Anyway i hate people truncate what was saying then reply a wrong
>>>> reply. It's always better to have ALL the previous text posted
>>>> after my reply, so the guy is not obliged to read all the history,
>>>> he can, but he is not obliged to read all before to be able to see
>>>> the answer. Posting bottom is a stupidity ! (but i do here because
>>>> everbody in usenet do it - beurk ! :-) )
>>>
>>> Nobody *has* to read quoted material in a post/email that is
>>> bottom-posted.  I don't unless I want to refer back to it.  When I
>>> enter a newsgroup I click in the message pane and hit the END
>>> button. That jumps to the bottom instantly. After reading the post
>>> I hit the Space Bar which jumps to the next unread message or the
>>> next group. Simple.
>>>
>> With the reply at the top, i don't need to hit the END button :-) and
>> all the posts are in a correct order.
>
>
>
My vote is for top replies, not bottom. However to keep the peace, I
force myself to bottom reply. Even though it's a pain in the "     ".

--
Takes more than talk to get things done.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: replying at the bottom

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by Ed Mullen-9
On 7/9/2014 7:02 PM, Ed Mullen wrote:

> Ken Springer pounded out :
>> On 7/9/14 12:44 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
>>> Lotsa chatter about top vs bottom posting untrimmed no
>>> contextualization.
>>>
>>> No good.
>>>
>>> The important action is the trimming and the contextualization, not top
>>> vs bottom, neither of which are any good for usenet.
>>
>> Agreed, but that wasn't the subject.   :-)
>>
>> Not mentioned about trimming, and this could include attributions, is
>> sometimes/eventually too much is trimmed.  Then you have software like
>> Windows Live Mail that apparently can quote correctly to save its soul.
>>   And software that doesn't correctly deal with cross posted messages
>> and marking them as read.  Thunderbird broke this years ago, and they
>> apparently aren't inclined to fix it.
>>
>>
>
> Indeed.  I frequently ignore/skip over replies because there is little
> or no context.  People who shred threads, for me, are doomed to be NOT
> read.
>
> I'd much rather have to skip over un-trimmed stuff than have to go
> rooting back through a thread to figure out what's going on.  And, in
> fact, 99.9% of the time I won't.  I'll ignore the whold post.
>
Same here.  Pressing the END key doesn't seem like too much of a burden
to me.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
12345