|
Re: OT: Top Posting Vs. Bottom Posting: Case Closed!
de Terry Russell 04/24/2006 01:09
"Bill Turner" <noway@nohow.com> wrote in message
news:444bb900_4@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> In a business environment using email, I think it makes more sense to
> top post *and* include the entire original post, without trimming.
>
> Here on Usenet, if a replier screws up and trims an important part of
> the original post little harm is done, but for a business *email* it
> could be critical. I believe that's why Microsoft products are the way
> they are.
>
> Just my opinion, can't prove it.
Most software is really very primitive, you may as well discuss the right
shade of ochre to paint hand prints with.
For issues with some immediately useful content I prefer edited and
interspersed comments.
For convenience when hunting old emails and googling then top post and
full quote makes things a tad easier.
Rock/paper/scissors.
Full quoting is a holdover from the days of comments on paper, the
impression
that it cannot be faked, and that propagating full context in multiple
copies
may cover your derriere.
Top post enourages full quote, indeed it makes it almost a toughtless
side effect.
Imagine the load when 100 staff get forwarded a 50 meg document scan
for comment, then forward the whole thing back, and back again , and back
again.
A small business can have 50 GigaB of core data, and 5 TeraB of old
emails carefully backed up that noone will ever read again but noone
can bother to review or dare delete wholesale.
Server crashes and slow intranets are natures way of telling you staff
are quoting too much :-)