Who reads their email the most Classically?

From: Kent Borg <kentborg_at_borg.org>
Date: Thu Aug 16 07:59:30 2001

On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 06:09:51PM -0700, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
> > >Sridhar, REPLY BELOW THE MESSAGES YOU QUOTE.
>
> > Iggy, SOME PEOPLE PREFER THAT THE NEW STUFF COME AT THE TOP.
>
> I thought it was more or less a de facto standard to top-quote.

It depends. If one is blindly copying the entire previous message (or
worse, entire message thread), it is better to put all that garbage at
the bottom of the new message so the reader can easily ignore such
chaff. (Can you tell I have a bias?)

I am of the school of thought that figures the only reason for quoting
previous content is to provide context so the new message will make
sense. Following this reasoning, the context should be established
first. HOWEVER, it is very important to trim the quote so that it
only provides enough context and doesn't go overboard and turn into
spam. Ever seen the TV program "The West Wing"? They start most
programs with a short "previously on The West Wing..."-bit. It comes
first (so the following program will make sense) and it is shorter
than the new program (even though it covers more territory--the idea
is that it be the new stuff that is important).

It is also important to make clear what is what. I have seen messages
where the new material is apparently marked off with quoting
characters. I don't know how that happens.

Remember, the goal is to communicate--and to be clear even.


-kb, the normally liberal Kent who was nevertheless ~rather~ fond of
that fascist feature in "rn" that refused to make a usenet posting
that had more quoted material than new material.
Received on Thu Aug 16 2001 - 07:59:30 BST