[wplug] A question of etiquette

[Burt E Reany]

  When I carry on a dialog with an individual, I don't usually repeat my
understanding of their statements back to them before adding my own - I
respond to their statements with my own view, directly.  This works with
face-to-face, telephone or one-on-one letter discourses. (Top-Posting).

  When I am documenting functions for members of an outside group, I take
precautions to start with an overview and develop the themes later in the
text, to insure that the logical development leads any unknown user to the
best possible understanding of the topic. (Bottom-Posting).

  In groups, when I enter an original message, I use the documentation
technique. If, however,  I reply to another members message, I am entering
a dialog with that messages' author - one which is  also visible to other
outside and archival readers.

   In such e-mail replies to individuals, thru groups - as well as to
people who are very busy with many others, and have short attention spans -
I
chose to use the more personal dialog rather than the documentation
technique - but will, as a politeness, footnote my reply with explanatory
text from previous communications. Outside or archival readers won't
usually be forced to go to previous messages in the thread if I do this
correctly and adequately.

  Yes, the dialog approach puts a minor burden on the outside or archival
reader - but it places more of a burden on me, to be sure the outside
reader gets the necessary supplemental input for my message to be
meaningful and self-contained without forcing them to go to previous
messages in the thread.

   Using the bottom-posting documentation technique implies that I am
writing to the outside reader, rather than the message author. This is my
opinion only - I'd appreciate any out-of-group feedback.

Thanx.
Coot_jg.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please
delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in
delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to
bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written
agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail
for such purpose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




                                                                                                                          
                      Jonathan                                                                                            
                      Billings                 To:      Burt E Reany/GIS/SC/CSC at CSC, General user list <wplug at wplug.org>  
                      <jsbillings              cc:                                                                        
                      @gmail.com>              Subject: Re: [wplug] A question of etiquette                               
                                                                                                                          
                      06/02/2005 09:33                                                                                    
                      AM                                                                                                  
                      Please respond                                                                                      
                      to 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