[wplug] A question of etiquette

[Jonathan Billings]

On 6/2/05, Burt E Reany <breany at csc.com> wrote:
> The  "Re: ---" line in the header tells me which conversation thread I
> should resurrect, and  timestamp where I'm continuing from; 

A subject and a timestamp are often not enough to get a proper
context.  It also puts the burden of following the thread of the
conversation on the reader.  This, as well as other top-posting
arguments, seem like they are arguments from laziness rather than
efficiency.

> Top-posting
> treats the original text in the classic literary fashion, by treating it as
> a footnote, for people requiring such a referent. 

  A footnote is typically supplimental text, which is not necessary to
the body.  In some cases, it is a comment.  So, using your argument,
the *reply* to a body of text which is commenting on the text would be
the footnote.  I think you're actually arguing for bottom posting!

  A quotation, however, is a form of literary fashion most similar to
an email reply.  When using a quotation in literature, it is typically
indented with a different face, and a reference is given either in a
footnote or as part of the text.  A quotation typically preceeds the
body of text that refers to it.

> (Besides, our corporate
> choice of $ware top-posts automatically, so I have an externally-enforced
> protocol, and wouldn't be allowed to be polite even if I wanted to.)

I suppose if your corporate email software forces you to both top-post
and leave a legalese-signature, you're going to be stuck being rude. 
I don't think that's an excuse for those of us who *aren't* forced.

-- 
  Jonathan Billings
jsbillings at gmail.com