HomeRoast Digest

Topic: Three ways [not] to ruin a [reply].... (23 msgs / 379 lines)
1) From: John Blumel
Snip ruthlessly, bottom post under each point you are responding to, 
and never quote more than you have to say yourself.
John Blumel

2) From: gin
top post, why not? beats going all the way to the bottom...
At 09:22 AM 6/27/2004, you wrote:

3) From: Deward Hastings
We are on a listserv, with an archive, and the subject line identifies =
post (thread) to which a "reply" is directed.  There is rarely *any* =
served by a complete "quoteback" . . . but at least when at "the bottom"
(footnote, appended) it is easily ignored.
Agree, except to note that an introductory paragraph (or abstract) may =
be in
order (and may be all that is needed).  I often find myself scanning =
hundred e-mails at a sitting . . . if there is not new material in the
preview panel I just "delete".  Don't know what I'm missing, don't care =
. .
. if the "style" is time-wasting the "content" probably is too . . . =
are consistent in often surprisingly revealing ways ).

4) From: Angelo
At  6/27/2004 01:10 PM, you wrote:
I agree...

5) From: John Blumel
On Jun 27, 2004, at 1:10pm, gin wrote:
For your reader's convenience and understanding...
Snipping all but the most relevant portions makes it clear what you are 
actually commenting on. Bottom posting after each point gives context 
to the reply before it is read, without having to scroll down to read 
the original message or guessing what it applies to. Not quoting more 
than you have to say keeps message (and digest and archive) sizes to a 
minimum and focuses attention on your message.
John Blumel

6) From: gin
ok John,
I see your point.
At 10:41 AM 6/27/2004, you wrote:

7) From: John Blumel
On Jun 27, 2004, at 1:30pm, Deward Hastings wrote:
Unless the original message is extremely short, there is almost never a 
need for quoting the entire message. That's why I suggest one, "Snip 
If that's the case, then quote nothing. If the reply isn't responding 
to specific points made in the original message, the subject line will 
suffice for context. Or, maybe the message should be the start of a new 
Precisely the point, although, it's more likely the case that the 
content may not be understood rather than being of no value.
Top posting wastes time because the reader has to scroll down to read 
the original message to see what the reply applies to -- especially in 
a long thread which may have branched off in several directions -- and 
then scroll back up to read the reply. ('Scroll', in this context 
should be interpreted loosely to include visual scrolling.) Quoting the 
entire message wastes time because the reader must spend time figuring 
out what part of the original message the writer is commenting or 
expanding on.
John Blumel

8) From: John Blumel
On Jun 27, 2004, at 2:01pm, gin wrote:
How embarrassing. I'd hoped that it was hidden by my hair.
John Blumel

9) From: Gene Smith
Yes, Deward, people are...aren't they?  They are also surprisingly revealing
in the ways of their consistency.
Gene Smith
glad to 'waste time' on intelligent conversation, in Houston

10) From: Gene Smith
Surely, John, someone as computer knowledgeable as yourself has noticed that
the miracle of the internet, email, and e-commerce has divided 'time
wasting' into two mutally exclusive categories:
There is wasting MY time, which hits just below genocide on the Bad Things
To Do list...
And then there is wasting YOUR time, which is at worst irrelevant and, at
best, wholly desireable, since I have converted your Time Waste (who cares?)
into my Time Save (Mighty Multitasking Guy kicks ass and takes names again!)
See?  It's all about Progress!
Gene Smith
regressing, in Houston

11) From: John Blumel
On Jun 27, 2004, at 2:34pm, Gene Smith wrote:
Einstein predicted this in his general theory of relativity.
John Blumel

12) From: Deward Hastings
It's the asymmetry of "time wasting" on a listserv . . .
best, wholly desireable, since I have converted your Time Waste (who =
into my Time Save 
In one-on-one communication wasting a minute of someone else's time to =
a minute of your own is merely rude (and the "victim" can reply in kind
).  On a listserv one can waste a minute each of a thousand people's =
for that same one minute "benefit" to one's own.  That's sociopathic . . =

13) From: Robert Cantor
If you're replying to single points from a long essay it's more helpful to
quote those with the ">" or other mark up top and add your witticism, snide
comment, or, if you must, cogent remark clearly separated underneath;
repeating as necessary, as was stated.  Then it's good to leave the larger
context of the original thought at the bottom for those who need that.
There will usually be plenty you can still snip (<>).  But if you're adding
your thoughts to a running conversation it makes much more sense to just
post at top and leave the salient parts of prior posts at the bottom rather
than force your readers to scroll through acres of yesterday's news.   Trust
your readers to be able to follow a thread of conversation and offer them
the convenience of the latest tidbits at top rather than assume they have
too little wit to remember what they've already read.  And if they're just
jumping in, they can always sort by subject to catch up or google if they're
new.  Bottom posting in that circumstance greatly increases the risk that
your contribution will not be found, depriving us from the benefit of your
Bob "returning to the cave" C.

14) From: gin
well said Robert!
At 01:14 PM 6/27/2004, you wrote:

15) From: Gene Smith
Oh, you mean where he suggests that I if I can travel in a spaceship at
near-light speed and return to Earth that I'll still be young and handsome
and everybody else will be dead, and that's just their tough luck?
Gene Smith
picturing Dorian Gray, in Houston

16) From: John Blumel
On Jun 27, 2004, at 6:29pm, Gene Smith wrote:
No, that's predicted by the special theory of relativity.
John Blumel

17) From: Gene Smith
Damn!  They're never gonna let me into that spaceship now...
Gene Smith
who was feeling special, in Houston

18) From: jeff
just curious-
how does one's occupation impact the preference for top vs bottom 
snipping etc. i use e-mail recreationally not occupationally. my 
preference (as demonstrated here) is to start w/ a clean slate. i tend 
to bypass bottom posted content especially if the original is too long. 
personally i find snip heavy posts a hassle to plow thru.  all that 
said- i can see how if  a person is spending all day doing e-mail for 
work it would be very important to have a prescribed posting etiquette.
my 2 cents worth.
-jeff ronk

19) From: gin
Excellent point. I consider email more of a conversation and have listened 
so to speak to what I have read, hence post to it on top...
I am going to forward this to my sister since she falls into both groups. 
She hated her computer and email prior to quieting work to travel and write.
At 06:22 PM 6/27/2004, you wrote:

20) From: Ben Treichel
gin wrote:
My thoughts also, especially with threaded email.

21) From: John Cramer
I actually unsubscribe from lists that require
bottom posting. Bottom posting, to me, is a complete
waste of my time, having to scroll down to read a
John, not wandering

22) From: John Abbott
On Monday 28 June 2004 10:25 pm, John Cramer wrote:
Well that's certainly enough to effect a change in MY habits.
John - wandering

23) From: miKe mcKoffee

HomeRoast Digest