Author: Jarvis, Matthew
Posted: 2011-03-10 19:09:22 Link
Everybody knows that top posting is the way to go...
Thanks,
Matthew Jarvis || Business Systems Analyst
IT Department
McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center
1460 G Street, Springfield, OR 97477 || Ph: 541-744-6092 || Fax:
541-744-6145
> I'm with Al. I try to top-post, unless the context is really
critical.
>
> Middle Posting???
>
Has top-posting been declared evil?
>
> Dan Covill
Everybody knows that bottom posting is the way to go...
Thanks,
Matthew Jarvis || Business Systems Analyst
IT Department
McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center
1460 G Street, Springfield, OR 97477 || Ph: 541-744-6092 || Fax:
541-744-6145
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain information that is
Proprietary, Confidential, or legally privileged or protected. It
is intended only for the use of the individual(s) and entity named
in the message. If you are not an intended recipient of this
message, please notify the sender immediately and delete the
material from your computer. Do not deliver, distribute or copy
this message and do not disclose its contents or take any action in
reliance on the information it contains.
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/69F310C05DD83C48A84BA3769CE1ECF8045F447C@TNTRIEXEVS02.triadhospitals.net
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: Jeff Johnson
Posted: 2011-03-10 19:43:39 Link
Dan: How are you doing? I top post when responding to top-posters and
bottom post when responding to bottom-posters. ;^)
Jeff
---------------
Jeff Johnson
jeff@san-dc.com
(623) 582-0323
www.san-dc.com
On 03/10/2011 04:42 PM, Dan Covill wrote:
> On 3/10/2011 1:26 PM, Allen wrote:
>> I wondered why I could actually see the message :)
>> Al
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: profoxtech-bounces@leafe.com [mailto:profoxtech-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Ed Leafe
>>
>>
>> -- Ed
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone, so please excuse any top-posting.
> I'm with Al. I try to top-post, unless the context is really critical.
> Has top-posting been declared evil?
>
> Dan Covill
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/4D79703B.603@san-dc.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: Jeff Johnson
Posted: 2011-03-10 19:44:17 Link
After I sent that I realized I am a bi-poster!
Jeff
---------------
Jeff Johnson
jeff@san-dc.com
(623) 582-0323
www.san-dc.com
On 03/10/2011 04:42 PM, Dan Covill wrote:
> On 3/10/2011 1:26 PM, Allen wrote:
>> I wondered why I could actually see the message :)
>> Al
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: profoxtech-bounces@leafe.com [mailto:profoxtech-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Ed Leafe
>>
>>
>> -- Ed
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone, so please excuse any top-posting.
> I'm with Al. I try to top-post, unless the context is really critical.
> Has top-posting been declared evil?
>
> Dan Covill
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/4D797061.6060704@san-dc.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
On Mar 10, 2011, at 6:42 PM, Dan Covill wrote:
> I'm with Al. I try to top-post, unless the context is really critical.
> Has top-posting been declared evil?
Dan, you're a young'un, so you probably don't remember the days before Outlook. :)
Besides making things hard to read, it encourages people to not trim their replies. Observe any thread dominated by top posters, and you'll see reams and reams of useless quoted garbage below any actual useful content.
Most people who top-post do so because they use an email client that defaults to that style. They click 'Reply', type a few words, and hit send. No thought is given to composition, much less trimming.
The ideal method of replying is inline comments, with trimming off all the non-relevant quoted text. That way you have sufficient context to understand what the writer is responding to, and are also able to read it in a much more conversational style.
-- Ed Leafe
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/2BC056C1-F4C9-4618-8D98-8A785C034B86@leafe.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Wrong
So often many here bottom post without snipping and I can't see the new
parts. Most of the time I just delete them without looking at the new
content. So bottom posting does not make people snip and in my opinion makes
it no easier or harder to read. I have even seen posts here where the
content has been cut by the mail system where bottom feeders, er posters
have left all the debris. I top post, always have, and I still snip.
I do agree that sometimes inline is a good idea where there are multiple
parts to be addressed.
Al
-----Original Message-----
From: profoxtech-bounces@leafe.com [mailto:profoxtech-bounces@leafe.com] On
Behalf Of Ed Leafe
Besides making things hard to read, it encourages people to not trim
their replies. Observe any thread dominated by top posters, and you'll see
reams and reams of useless quoted garbage below any actual useful content.
The ideal method of replying is inline comments, with trimming off
all the non-relevant quoted text. That way you have sufficient context to
understand what the writer is responding to, and are also able to read it in
a much more conversational style.
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/01f501cbdff3$34e28ae0$9ea7a0a0$@com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
On Mar 11, 2011, at 8:49 AM, Allen wrote:
> Wrong
> So often many here bottom post without snipping and I can't see the new
> parts. Most of the time I just delete them without looking at the new
> content.
Then they are contributing to the problem. If they are replying, they must want people to read what they say. Failure to properly compose a message is the main problem. Given that untrimmed messages are the biggest problem, let's compare properly-trimmed messages and ignore the red herring of trimming.
If all you have is one simple point to make in a sentence or two, the difference is trivial; most people can move their eyeballs to read the quoted context first so that they understand the reply. It's when a message is more complex, consisting of several related points, each of which is addressed, that inline replies, with the reply below the quote, is the clear winner. It is conversational, and allows the reader to follow the points that the author is making with enough context.
-- Ed Leafe
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/F74104CC-EDFC-4C44-92CA-876B3DAF8177@leafe.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
While in speech the words follow, that's for sure. But I do find it easier
to just read the reply part. Then If I did not remember the reason for the
reply look back at the original. So for me top posting is much easier.
As for ignoring the lack of trimming, that's not possible because of the
number of bottom posters that don't trim.
Watch the next week of posts and see. Also trimming, or the lack by top
posters, seemed to be your main argument.
Probably the most annoying is a long post replied to at the bottom with "me
too".
But we have been here before with the top/bottom posting debate. Note that
in the original reply I put :) at the end.
Al
-----Original Message-----
From: profoxtech-bounces@leafe.com [mailto:profoxtech-bounces@leafe.com] On
Behalf Of Ed Leafe
Then they are contributing to the problem. If they are replying,
they must want people to read what they say. Failure to properly compose a
message is the main problem. Given that untrimmed messages are the biggest
problem, let's compare properly-trimmed messages and ignore the red herring
of trimming.
If all you have is one simple point to make in a sentence or two,
the difference is trivial; most people can move their eyeballs to read the
quoted context first so that they understand the reply. It's when a message
is more complex, consisting of several related points, each of which is
addressed, that inline replies, with the reply below the quote, is the clear
winner. It is conversational, and allows the reader to follow the points
that the author is making with enough context.
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/01f901cbdff7$317be370$9473aa50$@com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: Vincent Teachout
Posted: 2011-03-11 09:34:00 Link
Allen wrote:
> Wrong
Oh goody, I didn't miss the latest round of tops vs bottoms.
> So often many here bottom post without snipping and I can't see the new
> parts.
Agreed. When that happens I just delete the message unread, unless I'm
interested enough in the subject to scroll.
>I top post, always have, and I still snip.
I think *always* being one way is... not the best strategy.
I'm tri-postal (aka slut-mode), changing depending on the circumstances.
In cases like this, where I'm pretty sure everyone already knows the
preceding emails, I'll in-line post.
If I'm replying to a SHORT post, or can trim it short, I'll bottom post,
as that keeps the original timeline. Never more than a paragraph of the
original post, though.
If some moron is simply passing around one of those CYA memos, where
they've kept every single reply since God was a boy, so they can later
pull the email out of their ass to show how the latest screwup wasn't
their fault, I'll scribble some obligatory remark ("Sounds
douce-a-licous, Bob! Let's run it up the flagpole and see who farts!")
at the top, and REPLY ALL (And those ones are ALWAYS "All", with at
least half a dozen people playing.)
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/4D7A32D8.2050507@taconic.net
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: Vincent Teachout
Posted: 2011-03-11 09:38:02 Link
Allen wrote:
> Probably the most annoying is a long post replied to at the bottom with "me
> too".
We have legislation pending here in New York that would make that
punishable by flogging.
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/4D7A33CA.7030204@taconic.net
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: Jeff Johnson
Posted: 2011-03-11 09:43:16 Link
On 03/11/2011 06:36 AM, Ed Leafe wrote:
> On Mar 10, 2011, at 6:42 PM, Dan Covill wrote:
>
>> I'm with Al. I try to top-post, unless the context is really critical.
>> Has top-posting been declared evil?
>
> Dan, you're a young'un, so you probably don't remember the days before Outlook. :)
>
> Besides making things hard to read, it encourages people to not trim their replies. Observe any thread dominated by top posters, and you'll see reams and reams of useless quoted garbage below any actual useful content.
>
> Most people who top-post do so because they use an email client that defaults to that style. They click 'Reply', type a few words, and hit send. No thought is given to composition, much less trimming.
>
> The ideal method of replying is inline comments, with trimming off all the non-relevant quoted text. That way you have sufficient context to understand what the writer is responding to, and are also able to read it in a much more conversational style.
>
>
>
> -- Ed Leafe
>
>
I have noticed that Ed's emails are of the most consistent I have seen!
I send more emails to customers than I do on these lists. I prefer
bottom posting on with this content with trimming so that I can quickly
get up to speed on a thread that I haven't been following. I tried
bottom posting with some of my customers and quickly abandoned it
because they kept asking me why I resent them their email with nothing
added. ;^)
Jeff
---------------
Jeff Johnson
jeff@san-dc.com
(623) 582-0323
www.san-dc.com
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/4D7A3504.6090608@san-dc.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.