 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / Applications / Eudora / November 2004How to reply *above* quoted text?
This is probably something that Qualcomm has long since corrected, but I'm having no luck finding a setting that will make Eudora 5.1 place the cursor *above* quoted text rather than below when replying (I checked the x-settings list to no avail). I'm surprised that the default behavior is to put it below, actually - I don't remember that ever being a net standard (why force the reader to scroll down to read your reply?). My apologies if this topic has been covered a hundred times - it's not an easy concept to search for. Thanks! _____________________ w h i t g u r l e y whitgurley@R-E-M-O-V-E-T-H-I-Shotmail.com In article <whitgurley-3B933F.11103613082004@netnews.comcast.net>, Whit Gurley <whitgurley@TxHxExOxPxPxOxSxIxTxExOxFxCxOxLxDmail.com> wrote: > This is probably something that Qualcomm has long since corrected, but > I'm having no luck finding a setting that will make Eudora 5.1 place the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > reply?). My apologies if this topic has been covered a hundred times - > it's not an easy concept to search for. like a good net citizen. Eudora probably conforms to this, Because peaople tend to read from top to bottom. Why is top-posting so annoying? ;-)  Signature/Jon > This is probably something that Qualcomm has long since corrected, but > I'm having no luck finding a setting that will make Eudora 5.1 place the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > w h i t g u r l e y > whitgurley@R-E-M-O-V-E-T-H-I-Shotmail.com Two keystrokes: command-R, left-arrow > Two keystrokes: > command-R, left-arrow Actually, it's five keystrokes: command-R left-arrow return return (to kick the quoted text down, lest my reply get quoted as well) left-arrow And add another two "delete" keys at the beginning of that if you don't want your signature to have a gap before it (which I don't). Multiply that by hundreds of times per year and you get a repetitive, unnecessary nuisance. Thanks, but I'm looking for a Eudora behavior modification here. _____________________ w h i t g u r l e y whitgurley@R-E-M-O-V-E-T-H-I-Shotmail.com In article <whitgurley-2951C5.14590613082004@netnews.comcast.net>, Whit Gurley <whitgurley@TxHxExOxPxPxOxSxIxTxExOxFxCxOxLxDmail.com> wrote: :> In article <130820041451124707%anniel@nym.alias.net.invalid>, :> A N Niel <anniel@nym.alias.net.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] :> w h i t g u r l e y :> whitgurley@R-E-M-O-V-E-T-H-I-Shotmail.com Considering that Eudora's defined behavior keeps all the previous text selected (unless you selected a portion of it yourself), and considering that making it do what you request would be making it a poorly behaved netizen, why bother? SignatureSteve W. Jackson Montgomery, Alabama In article <whitgurley-3B933F.11103613082004@netnews.comcast.net>, Whit Gurley <whitgurley@TxHxExOxPxPxOxSxIxTxExOxFxCxOxLxDmail.com> wrote: > I'm having no luck finding a setting that will make Eudora 5.1 place the > cursor *above* quoted text rather than below when replying (I checked > the x-settings list to no avail). I'm surprised that the default > behavior is to put it below, actually - I don't remember that ever being > a net standard (why force the reader to scroll down to read your > reply?). Ah. I see. > You should trim your quoted text so they don't have to. >> What about the trouble of scrolling down to read my reply? >>> It makes long exchanges hard to read, and it's not the net standard. >>>> Why not? >>>>> To answer your question, it's not really a good idea to top-post. ----j7y Signaturejere7my tho?rpe "Clever stratagems are quite beyond my 734-769-0913 powers, but if it is rank foolishness jere7my@yahoo.com you require, I have no end of it." http://www.livejournal.com/~jere7my Jack Shaftoe, _The Confusion_ > Ah. I see. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > >>>>> To answer your question, it's not really a good idea to top-post. Cute. If I was talking about engaging in long conversations that always included all of the previous entries *or* I was talking about a news reader, then yes, it makes more sense to bottom-post. But for messages in which I only include the quoted text from the previous message (just to refresh the recipient's memory), bottom-posting is pointless. I have to assume that the default behavior of Outlook (not that any MS product should be considered the bearer of good etiquette, but still...) is to set the cursor above the quoted text because that is where such text ends up every time my not-so-tech-savvy coworkers reply to my messages. Safari, same thing. _____________________ w h i t g u r l e y whitgurley@R-E-M-O-V-E-T-H-I-Shotmail.com In article <whitgurley-E2257A.15011613082004@netnews.comcast.net>, Whit Gurley <whitgurley@TxHxExOxPxPxOxSxIxTxExOxFxCxOxLxDmail.com> wrote: :> In article <jere7my2-49EC5B.14553813082004@corp.supernews.com>, :> "jere7my tho?rpe" <jere7my2@oberlin.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] :> w h i t g u r l e y :> whitgurley@R-E-M-O-V-E-T-H-I-Shotmail.com No, what's pointless is to have to look below your reply to refresh my recollections of the previous discussion -- or even worse, to figure out which portion you deemed worthy of a reply. Top-posting is completely unnatural to those who read left-right-top-bottom. SignatureSteve W. Jackson Montgomery, Alabama > No, what's pointless is to have to look below your reply to refresh my > recollections of the previous discussion -- or even worse, to figure out > which portion you deemed worthy of a reply. Top-posting is completely > unnatural to those who read left-right-top-bottom. Once again, the default behavior of Apple Mail and Outlook is thus: Reply text, reply text, reply text. > Quoted text. > Quoted text. > Quoted text. I, and I'm fairly certain most of the non-usenet-news-reading public, prefer that email behavior over this one: > Quoted text. > Quoted text. > Quoted text. Reply text, reply text, reply text. ...because while reading an entire discussion makes more sense if the discussion is laid out oldest-to-newest, reading a single reply (especially when you simply don't need to read any of the old text because you remember what it says) is easiest when the reply is right there at the top, the first thing that shows up in the message. If you hate that behavior, then by all means you keep bottom-posting, but I nearly never include more than the last message in my replies and I'm sick of having to hit five keystrokes before I even start typing. You'll notice that when I'm in Usenet I do bottom-post because I know that's the accepted standard (I've been using Usenet since Gopher days), but for emai it is not. It doesn't sound like you know a way to modify this behavior in Eudora, so let's agree to disagree on the above non-relevant topic and drop it. I will greatly appreciate any help from someone who knows how to make Eudora top-post by default and ignore anyone who wants to convince me not to. _____________________ w h i t g u r l e y whitgurley@R-E-M-O-V-E-T-H-I-Shotmail.com << Once again, the default behavior of Apple Mail and Outlook is thus: Reply text, reply text, reply text. > Quoted text. > Quoted text. > Quoted text. I, and I'm fairly certain most of the non-usenet-news-reading public, prefer that email behavior over this one: > Quoted text. > Quoted text. > Quoted text. Reply text, reply text, reply text. >><BR><BR> That is because: 1. Microsoft had a hand in it. 2. Most people are too lazy to change to the correct way even though top-posting is the same thing as reading a book by starting on the last page. 3. I don't know why Apple copied M$; lazyness, hired an ex-MS programmer, wanted switchers REALLY bad, etc. Bottom line: If you want to do it the M$ way, use Outlook and Windows. Dennis B. Swaney remove .zz to reply Whit Gurley <whitgurley@TxHxExOxPxPxOxSxIxTxExOxFxCxOxLxDmail.com> wrote: > I, and I'm fairly certain most of the non-usenet-news-reading public, > prefer that email behavior over this one: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Reply text, reply text, reply text. The above certainly is bad netiquette. Much better for those who read left to right, top to bottom, is: > Quoted text Reply text > Quoted text Reply text Everything you are not replying to should be snipped out. No, I don't know how to make Eudora misbehave the way you'd like. SignatureKathy - read reviews of other newsgroups in news:news.groups.reviews help for new users at <http://www.aptalaska.net/~kmorgan/> Good Net Keeping Seal of Approval at <http://www.gnksa.org/> > The above certainly is bad netiquette. Much better for those who read > left to right, top to bottom, is: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Everything you are not replying to should be snipped out. That's funny - I used to respond to all my email that way (again, a product of Usenet), but I once had a girlfriend who got really irritated when I did that. I still do it occasionally because it is beneficial for some conversations, such as ones that contain lists or multiple points that each need to be addressed individually, but for most simple exchanges it's overkill, and nearly all rookie net users will get confused or annoyed by it. > No, I don't know how to make Eudora misbehave the way you'd like. It amazes me how people insist on rules like bottom-posting regardless of the context - why on earth should one convention be appropriate for every situation? I'll be the first to insist that for multi-user discussions like those found in Usenet, bottom and interlaced posting should be adhered to always, but both are unnecessary in simple exchanges that contain only the previously sent message. There's a reason that Outlook and Mail use top-posting by default and it isn't that MS, Apple or the general email public are stupid. _____________________ w h i t g u r l e y whitgurley@R-E-M-O-V-E-T-H-I-Shotmail.com In article <whitgurley-8C7B2D.16270114082004@netnews.comcast.net>, Whit Gurley <whitgurley@TxHxExOxPxPxOxSxIxTxExOxFxCxOxLxDmail.com> wrote: > > No, I don't know how to make Eudora misbehave the way you'd like. > > It amazes me how people insist on rules like bottom-posting regardless > of the context - why on earth should one convention be appropriate for > every situation? <http://www.digital-web.com/articles/how_to_write_effective_mailing_list_ email/> <http://www.webfoot.com/advice/email.top.html> :-) Cheers martin > <http://www.digital-web.com/articles/how_to_write_effective_mailing_list_ > email/> > > <http://www.webfoot.com/advice/email.top.html> > > :-) Thanks, Martin, but the first URL deals specifically with mailing list email and thus doesn't appear to be relevant to this thread, which deals (effectively - all I initially wanted to do was make Eudora top-post by default) with simple, two-person back-and-forth conversations. The second URL (a very comprehensive document, though I can't imagine any email newbie caring enough about their email etiquette to read that much about the subject) uses bottom posting but doesn't refer to it specifically. I think it's quite possible that she didn't do so because she either doesn't advocate a bottom-post-always attitude or she doesn't care enough about it to invite a discussion like this one. :) _____________________ w h i t g u r l e y whitgurley@R-E-M-O-V-E-T-H-I-Shotmail.com Look, this argument could go on forever, because there are two clear modes of operation involved. (a) So-called "bottom posting" which as Kathy implies, is a usually a misnomer. If used properly it enables point by point response to an email. Used badly (i.e., where a long email is quoted in toto and not referred to specifically in the emailer's response), it is as wasteful as top-posting. (b) Top-posting, where the sender's response is usually one coherent statement not referring to specific points in the person's email and which often leaves their email there just to refresh the receiver's memory. Seems to me that where the cursor is placed - top or bottom - is pretty irrelevant, since there are offenders using both. My feeling is that leaving it at the bottom does encourage more sensible editing habits in dealing with the person's email, but I guess it could be argued both ways. I would not buy into that argument apart from stating my opinion above, but if the original poster's practice is to top-post merely to avoid editing the quoted material, then I would object to this practice for the reason stated below. Either way, what is the real breach of netiquette is leaving tons of quoted material in an email response that serves no purpose being slung back to the sender. Rifty rifty@rifty.net > Either way, what is the real breach of netiquette is leaving tons of > quoted material in an email response that serves no purpose being slung > back to the sender. Bravo. A sensible, well-reasoned response. SignatureJames Meiss <http://amath.colorado.edu/faculty/jdm> > > Either way, what is the real breach of netiquette is leaving tons of > > quoted material in an email response that serves no purpose being slung > > back to the sender. > > Bravo. A sensible, well-reasoned response. "Leaving tons of quoted material in an email response" may see like poor netiquette to some. But others of us -- maybe many of us? -- follow a mutually agreed procedure in which, as we carry on an exchange of messages in a discussion of some specific issue, we each just add our reply to the top of the incoming message, leaving everything else below it unchanged; and sent the result back to the sender. At the same time we delete the incoming message, along with any earlier messages that happen to be around, and retain only the reply we've just sent on our hard disk. Sure, it increases the number of bits flowing back and forth. But unless one is sending incredibly (unrealistically) long messages that's a trivial consideration. Doing this means that if you need to consult (or print out) the historical record of earlier records, they're all there, in the one latest message -- you don't have to keep, and potentially search through, a whole bunch of separate messages, scanning down through a long mailbox listing, to uncover some previous piece of information. In addition, as each message arrives at the other party's IN box the reply part is on top, in the first screen -- which is why we top post in email, even while complying with the bottom posting tradition on newsgroups. Don't know how other people file paper records, but in my file folders and in lots of offices I've seen, the latest piece of paper goes in front -- "on top" -- not at the back of the file, because that seems the easiest way to pull the file folder and compare this month's data with last month's, or to discard the oldest data at the back of the file at housekeeping time. To each his own, of course -- but this way is very reasonable also. [...] > we each just add our reply to the top > of the incoming message, leaving everything else below it unchanged; and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > (or print out) the historical record of earlier records, they're all > there, in the one latest message No it's not. What's there is what people have sent you, which is not equal to what you sent them. (And if you deleted the original outgoing message you even have no way anymore of verifying whether or not they changed the text they claim to be yours.) Yes, I know many people use email like this. In my experience most of them only do so because they use inferior email clients and nobody bothers to inform them of how to improve their communication skills. f.cked up quoting may be fine for the kind of unimportant email that you seemed to refer to earlier in this thread - provided the recpient appreciates it. I most certainly would not appreciate it - nor would many others. Then again, if it's really so unimportant I cannot see why one would bother to even quote anything as a "reminder" (or record). But if you keep email for archival purposes, to be able to refer to something, it seems stupid to me to rely on what others claim to be your text. (And they don't need to intentially change your words. Many people and software are quite capable of f.cking things up unintentionally - might happen even through something as stupid as a fully automated spellchecker that happily 'fixes' quoted text.) > -- you don't have to keep, and > potentially search through, a whole bunch of separate messages, scanning > down through a long mailbox listing, to uncover some previous piece of > information. Sort by Subject and you have the entire thread right there. (Assuming the Subject wasn't changed - it sucks that Eudora still cannot sort by references.) [...] > Don't know how other people file paper records, but in my file folders > and in lots of offices I've seen, the latest piece of paper goes in > front -- "on top" -- not at the back of the file, because that seems the > easiest way to pull the file folder and compare this month's data with > last month's, or to discard the oldest data at the back of the file at > housekeeping time. Sure. Makes sense for *filing*. But how many people file paper records by sending a copy to someone else? Filing and communicating are different things. SignatureSander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/> Mac user: "Macs only have 40 viruses, tops!" PC user: "SEE! Not even the virus writers support Macs!" > "Leaving tons of quoted material in an email response" may see like > poor netiquette to some. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > discussion of some specific issue, we each just add our reply to the top > of the incoming message, leaving everything else below it unchanged... (snip) All good points, but my habit is to send back only the last-sent fragment with my reply on top, which keeps things as simple as possible and avoids even the growing message size issue (again, this is usually just dealing with one other person, not a group, so the rest of the conversation isn't very necessary). I also delete the older messages from my In-box after I've replied to them, but those messages go to my Trash folder, where they sit for a year or two - I purge the oldest of them every once in awhile. This practice has proved invaluable over the years - I consult my Trash folder nearly every day for something or another. I would never dream of actually deleting anything but junk mail until it's at least a year old. This practice also negates the main point in Mr. Tekelenburg's reply - if you leave the deleted messages in your Trash then you always have an original copy of everything that was sent by both parties. _____________________ w h i t g u r l e y whitgurley@R-E-M-O-V-E-T-H-I-Shotmail.com << There's a reason that Outlook and Mail use top-posting by default and it isn't that MS, Apple or the general email public are stupid. >> Yes, it is. Never underestimate the stupidity, and you won't be surprised. Dennis B. Swaney remove .zz to reply Whit Gurley <whitgurley@TxHxExOxPxPxOxSxIxTxExOxFxCxOxLxDmail.com> wrote: > There's a > reason that Outlook and Mail use top-posting by default and it isn't > that MS, Apple or the general email public are stupid. Never underestimate the power of stupidity and inertia and never assume that people are the best judge of their own interests; every day in a million ways they demonstrate that they haven't got a clue about anything at all, let alone about writing email. Actually top posting exists because of a historical accident, due entirely to the dominance of IBM in business computing some forty years ago and Bill Gates's nifty footwork in getting his (at the time nonexistent) operating system adopted on the first IBM PC. As a result business adopted M$ software- because of IBM. And when M$ produced Oultook, which was the nastiest mailing program it has ever been my misfortune to have to use, it enshrined the counter-intuitive and logically nonsensical business of top posting. It's horrible. It's wrong. Every time you top post it labels you as someone who has no interest in communicating. But if you want to do it, either use Eudora and live with a couple of extra keystrokes, or use Entourage. SignaturePeter (snip) > It's horrible. It's wrong. Every time you top post it labels you as > someone who has no interest in communicating. But if you want to do it, > either use Eudora and live with a couple of extra keystrokes, or use > Entourage. You're absolutely right - it's the worst thing for anyone to have ever done, ever. Everyone should always do everything the way you do it, no matter what, and if they're not then they should just go back to chiselling pictograms on stone tablets. Arrogant, elitist attitudes like yours are every bit as deplorable as the actively ignorant practices of the net-offender community. I'm a career graphic/interface designer who has been using email and Usenet constantly for fifteen years, and I am damned good at communicating. Not one of even the most net-savvy people who I contact on a daily basis is bothered, harmed or confused by my habit of saving them from scrolling down to read my simple replies to their simple messages. Come to think of it, only one person that I regularly receive mail from bottom-posts in email - my sys-admin father - and even he top-posts when he replies to other people. Take your one-convention-fits-all rule and shove it. Top-posting hurts no one. _____________________ w h i t g u r l e y whitgurley@R-E-M-O-V-E-T-H-I-Shotmail.com Whit, I've concluded that you're probably a windozer. Evidence: 1. You are using a Micro$oft email service (and one that is a spammer's friend to boot) 2. You keep insisting that everyone do it Micro$oft's way. E-mail and e-mail netiquette were around long before Billy stole DOS, so the polite way is to bottom post. I've had a good laugh at your expense, so I must thank you. Dennis B. Swaney remove .zz to reply > Whit, I've concluded that you're probably a windozer. Evidence: > 1. You are using a Micro$oft email service (and one that is a spammer's friend [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I've had a good laugh at your expense, so I must thank you. Mac zealot for eleven years, haven't owned a PC since I bought a Centris 650 in '93, typing this on a 15" AlBook. The HM account is for semi-relevant mail only. On the other hand, directing inflammatory words at people you don't know is probably the greatest (albeit most common) netiquette offense out there. I couldn't care less whether you find me amusing, but I'll remind you yet again that Apple Mail top posts by default. And yes, I read your half-hearted theories on this earlier - lazyness (sic), ex-MS programmer, wanted switchers... all ridiculous. Apple nearly always either sets such trends or adopts those that the best computer/interface minds in the business deem the best. I will also point out that whether top-posting is "wrong" or not, it is incredibly prevalent, and replying to a top-posted reply with your content on the bottom is a far worse visual/communication offense than top-posting in the first place. At the very least Eudora should have a mechanism to follow whatever convention is already being used (which Mail appears to have). I'll be damned if I'm going to obfuscate all the mail I receive from the Outlook-using engineers at my office by replying at the bottom of their top-posted messages just because the net mafia decided that it's wrong/stupid/evil/sacrilegious not to do so. I'm through with this pointless argument - you guys go ahead and label me as a jackass and pretend you're better than the top-posting majority. In the unlikely event that anyone actually knows the answer to my original request, please email it to the aforementioned windozer email address. _____________________ w h i t g u r l e y whitgurley@R-E-M-O-V-E-T-H-I-Shotmail.com Whit Gurley <whitgurley@TxHxExOxPxPxOxSxIxTxExOxFxCxOxLxDmail.com> wrote: > I will also point out that whether top-posting is "wrong" or not, it is > incredibly prevalent So is eating at Dennys. It doesn't make it good. And reinforces the point I made earlier; just because lots of people do something doesn't mean that they have the slightest clue about what they're doing. SignaturePeter << So is eating at Dennys. It doesn't make it good. >> That was a Grand Slam, Peter! Dennis B. Swaney remove .zz to reply > So is eating at Dennys. It doesn't make it good. Mmm.....Moons Over My Hammy.......how can anyone _not_ like that?!? :-) SignatureJulian Y. Koh <mailto:kohster@northwestern.edu> Network Engineer <phone:847-467-5780> Telecommunications and Network Services Northwestern University PGP Public Key:<http://bunnytoaster.nsg.northwestern.edu/julian/pgppubkey.html> > > So is eating at Dennys. It doesn't make it good. > > Mmm.....Moons Over My Hammy.......how can anyone _not_ like that?!? OmiGahd! I've eaten very well all over the States and some of the Jewish breakfast joints in Manhattan were of *the best* (as good as the cholesterol festivals in British working men's caffs) and a memorable hole in the wall in Des Moines (YES!) where I had great fried eggs and hash browns and which I was never able to find again (in Des Moines? All five square yards of it? Where the hell did the diner hide in the afternoons?). But on long bus drives at breakfast time the drivers always seemed to home in on Denny's. Why the hell did they do it? It was sh.t served on crap. I'll bet those drivers were top posters to a man. SignaturePeter In article <whitgurley-18E9E8.22304816082004@netnews.comcast.net>, Whit Gurley <whitgurley@TxHxExOxPxPxOxSxIxTxExOxFxCxOxLxDmail.com> wrote: > I'm through with this pointless argument - you guys go ahead and label > me as a jackass and pretend you're better than the top-posting majority. > In the unlikely event that anyone actually knows the answer to my > original request, please email it to the aforementioned windozer email > address. I came in a little late on the thread so I apologize if this has been mentioned already: When you hit reply in Eudora *all* of the original text is automatically selected. No matter wether you prefer to write your reply above or below all it takes is to hit the up- or down arrow key and return once and you can start typing away. Would that be acceptable? Also worth noting is that you can select the paragraph(s) of the original message you want to reply to and instead press command + shift + R to "Reply Quoting Selection" - one of my favourite features. > Also worth noting is that you can select the paragraph(s) of the > original message you want to reply to and instead press command + shift > + R to "Reply Quoting Selection" - one of my favourite features. Yup, same here. I almost always use that feature. SignatureKathy > > Also worth noting is that you can select the paragraph(s) of the > > original message you want to reply to and instead press command + shift > > + R to "Reply Quoting Selection" - one of my favourite features. > > Yup, same here. I almost always use that feature. "Almost"? I think here it's "always". Doing a straight 'Cmd-R' is so unusual I have to stop and ask myself if I'm not doing something wrong... SignaturePeter > > > Also worth noting is that you can select the paragraph(s) of the > > > original message you want to reply to and instead press command + shift [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I think here it's "always". Doing a straight 'Cmd-R' is so unusual I > have to stop and ask myself if I'm not doing something wrong... Almost because I'm a backup moderator for news.groups.reviews, and when I'm rejecting spam I need to send back a reply to the robomoderator which has none of the original message quoted--so I Cmd-R and then start typing which automatically deletes all the original message. I think that's the only time I don't Cmd+Shift+R. SignatureKathy > Almost because I'm a backup moderator for news.groups.reviews, and when > I'm rejecting spam I need to send back a reply to the robomoderator > which has none of the original message quoted--so I Cmd-R and then start > typing which automatically deletes all the original message. Ah yes. That's a neat paradoxical feature I use if I want to reply without quoting anything; to quote nothing, first quote all. So yes, we function alike. But clearly you do it a great deal more often. SignaturePeter > > > Also worth noting is that you can select the paragraph(s) of the > > > original message you want to reply to and instead press command + shift [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I think here it's "always". Doing a straight 'Cmd-R' is so unusual I > have to stop and ask myself if I'm not doing something wrong... And always for me to ! JPaul. Signature/==/==\\-\ Jean-Paul BLANC / /--/--//\\ quelque-part (somewhere) |/| L |\\\ en (in) \/|| = |||\\\ FRANCE Whit Gurley <whitgurley@TxHxExOxPxPxOxSxIxTxExOxFxCxOxLxDmail.com> wrote: > Arrogant, elitist attitudes like yours are every bit as deplorable as > the actively ignorant practices of the net-offender community. I'm a > career graphic/interface designer who has been using email and Usenet > constantly for fifteen years, and I am damned good at communicating. It would appear not, going by what you post- and of course I have no other way of judging. All I am advocating is making up your mind what you want to say, then starting at the beginning, eliminating the superfluous, going on to the end, then stopping. If that is arrogant and elitist then I am happy to be both of those things. SignaturePeter > It's horrible. It's wrong. Every time you top post it labels you as > someone who has no interest in communicating. That's definetely true. Thanks Peter. JPaul. Signature/==/==\\-\ Jean-Paul BLANC / /--/--//\\ quelque-part (somewhere) |/| L |\\\ en (in) \/|| = |||\\\ FRANCE Whit Gurley <whitgurley@TxHxExOxPxPxOxSxIxTxExOxFxCxOxLxDmail.com> wrote: > But for messages > in which I only include the quoted text from the previous message (just > to refresh the recipient's memory), bottom-posting is pointless. IMHO the better one is in-posting. Just quoting the more important parts of the message (to refresh the recipient's memory), and posting the answers just after each part. Like I'm doing in this message. > I have to assume that the default behavior of Outlook (not that any MS > product should be considered the bearer of good etiquette, but still...) Certainly not. > is to set the cursor above the quoted text because that is where such > text ends up All text ends up at its end ! JPaul. Signature/==/==\\-\ Jean-Paul BLANC / /--/--//\\ quelque-part (somewhere) |/| L |\\\ en (in) \/|| = |||\\\ FRANCE Maybe you should read MS' own advice on top-posting. The following is snipped from a Microsoft FAQ: Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.* Subject: [microsoft.public.windowsnt] Welcome - read this first! Last-modified: 10/26/99 Copyright: (c) 1995-1999 Microsoft Corporation Maintainer: essmvp@microsoft.com [snip] When including text from a previous message in the thread, trim it down to include only text pertinent to your response. Your response should appear below the quoted information. [snip] There is even a RFC for this, RFC 1855, which is available (for example) from http://www.stanton.dtcc.edu/stanton/cs/rfc1855.html which states among other things: "If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just enough text of the original to give a context. This will make sure readers understand when they start to read your response." "Giving context helps everyone. But do not include the entire original! " SignatureA: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? << [snip] When including text from a previous message in the thread, trim it down to include only text pertinent to your response. Your response should appear below the quoted information. [snip] >> So, Micro$oft can't even follow their own rules. Why doesn't that surprise me? Dennis B. Swaney remove .zz to reply > << [snip] > When including text from a previous message in the thread, trim it down [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > So, Micro$oft can't even follow their own rules. Why doesn't that surprise me? There are nice people in Redmond- really there are. And apart from making obscene amounts of money for Billy, many of them want to do well by the world. In fact they believe that they *do*. OE had/has perfectly good advice about posting when you select the mode you want to use. The only problem was that for years the default was HTML- and automatic opening of attachments and all those other fun things that helped spread the viruses and worms that we came to know and love- although I believe that changed in later versions but by then much damage had been done. And the commercial division created Outlook... I had to use that for several years at the BBC in Windoze98/NT4. No words are bad enough for the arseholes that inflicted that abomination on the world. So *some* of the people at M$ are bad. But several of them are really quite nice. Probably. SignaturePeter > There are nice people in Redmond- really there are. Yes, many. But there are always the marketing and legal departments that have the final word in Redmond. Not those bright minds Microsoft has bought just to make sure that they will not work for the competitors. If I would have been a technical genius I might also have sold my soul to Microsoft and live in wealth for years to come. With an army of marketeers and lawyers to defend it at any cost. Luckily I am only a modest Mac-user with average intelligence without Faustian dilemma's. SignatureReindeR > Maybe you should read MS' own advice on top-posting. The following is > snipped from a Microsoft FAQ: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > text of the original to give a context. This will make sure readers > understand when they start to read your response." * Top-posting is indeed a sin in newsgroup postings, where the thread organization needs to be maintained. In emails, however, I frequently top-post, especially in short messages that are not likely to turn into threads. If my friend Katherine asks: "Are you free for lunch on Friday?" I will top-post, "Yes, of course." earle * Signature__ __/\_\ /\_\/_/ \/_/\_\ earle \/_/ jones |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.