Reply -> top-post or bottom-post.

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by wege, Mar 9, 2007.

  1. wege

    wege Guest

    Which is the "proper" way to reply to an email - top-post or
    bottom-post?


    Thanks,
    wege
    wege, Mar 9, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. wege

    gordon Guest

    "wege" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >
    > Which is the "proper" way to reply to an email - top-post or
    > bottom-post?
    >
    >
    > Thanks,
    > wege
    >
    >


    Email - doesn't matter.

    If you are referring to a NEWSGROUP, such as this, then the accepted way is
    to trim the post you are replying to and post your reply underneath. After
    all, you don't read a book from the bottom up, do you?
    gordon, Mar 9, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. wege

    Mike Easter Guest

    wege wrote:
    > Which is the "proper" way to reply to an email - top-post or
    > bottom-post?


    In some corporate /email/ environments, the proper reply is 'text over,
    fullquote under' TOFU -- and that tofu style is passed from a project
    manager to a project underling to a project supervisor to a project
    coordinator etc.

    In almost 100% of /newsgroup/ replies, neither top posting tofu which is
    untrimmed and non-contextualized nor 'bottom' posting in an 'opposite'
    untrimmed noncontextualized manner is optimal.

    In newsgroup replies, the critical elements are the trimming and the
    contextualizing and the attributing.

    If you properly trim away all of the previous post to which you aren't
    responding while leaving the correctly located attribution and make your
    remarks preceded by an empty line _under_/after the precise words to
    which you are replying and then trim away everything else, your replies
    will demonstrate that you are able to read and understand what was said
    before you replied, and also that your remarks will be 'on the money'
    responsive to the preceding words which very words will be right before
    your eyes when you make/type your own remarks.

    People who fail to trim and contextualize also fail to read what was
    said before accurately, and fail to address their remarks directly to
    the words which were previously stated.

    Here's a demonstration:
    http://members.fortunecity.com/nnqweb/nquote.html Quoting Style in
    Newsgroup Postings

    --
    Mike Easter
    Mike Easter, Mar 9, 2007
    #3
  4. wege

    SgtMinor Guest

    gordon wrote:
    >
    >
    > "wege" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> Which is the "proper" way to reply to an email - top-post or
    >> bottom-post?
    >>
    >>
    >> Thanks,
    >> wege
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Email - doesn't matter.
    >
    > If you are referring to a NEWSGROUP, such as this, then the accepted way
    > is to trim the post you are replying to and post your reply underneath.
    > After all, you don't read a book from the bottom up, do you?


    The book reading analogy has some problems. If you lay down your book
    after finishing chapter 4, do you read chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 again
    before starting on chapter 5?
    SgtMinor, Mar 9, 2007
    #4
  5. wege

    Mike Easter Guest

    SgtMinor wrote:
    > gordon wrote:


    >> If you are referring to a NEWSGROUP, such as this, then the accepted
    >> way is to trim the post you are replying to and post your reply
    >> underneath. After all, you don't read a book from the bottom up, do
    >> you?

    >
    > The book reading analogy has some problems. If you lay down your book
    > after finishing chapter 4, do you read chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 again
    > before starting on chapter 5?


    Except the analogy in this example would be a special way of reading a
    book or pamphlet in which you tore out and disposed of the pages and
    parts of pages which you weren't talking about. It would be a
    non-analogous process by which you highlighted the part of a chapter's
    page which you wanted your friend to read, and when you handed your
    friend the book, all of the other pages and words disappeared except
    those which were highlighted.

    And, to further specialize the analogy -- the disappearing book also
    would have a special feature. The special feature would enable you to
    push an electronic button and cause all of the rest of the book which
    had disappeared to reappear, in case your friend wanted to read the
    entire book, chapter, or page before commenting on the particular part
    which you had highlighted.

    The reason that it is completely unnecessary to retain any words which
    aren't specifically being replied to is because all of those words and
    all of the words which preceded it are still available. Every message
    has a References section which contains the message id of the message
    which is being replied and every other message of the thread which
    preceded it -- so there is no need for anyone to retain any of the
    'extra' words to which they are not replying. There only needs to be
    enough 'immediate' context to provide a 'reference' which remarks are
    being revised and extended or rebutted or agreed or otherwise remarked.

    All of the rest of the 'framework' which accompanied those few words
    which are left as a 'skeleton' can be disposed of, because the entire
    body of the thread is recoverable by alternate means if someone should
    wish.

    That is an argument for aggressive trimming; the elimination of not
    only chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4, but also almost all of chapter 5.

    --
    Mike Easter
    Mike Easter, Mar 9, 2007
    #5
  6. wege

    Stickems. Guest

    Top post is the easiest and quickest way to both reply and to follow a
    discussion.


    "wege" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    |
    |
    | Which is the "proper" way to reply to an email - top-post or
    | bottom-post?
    |
    |
    | Thanks,
    | wege
    |
    |
    Stickems., Mar 9, 2007
    #6
  7. wege

    Mike Easter Guest

    Stickems. wrote:
    > Top post is the easiest and quickest way to both reply and to follow a
    > discussion.


    Top posting destroys a discussion's order, and generally demonstrates
    that the top poster isn't able to read what was written before, and
    generally demonstrates that the top poster is unable to respond directly
    or accurately to what was said before, and then confuses any other
    readers as to what particular part of the previous conversation was
    being addressed by the top poster.

    In addition, top posting demonstrates that the top poster is lazy [too
    lazy to properly trim and contextualize], egocentrical [whatever s/he
    says s/he thinks is so important it belongs higher up than anything
    anyone else had to say], and inconsiderate [uncaring as to carrying hir
    fair share of a community effort to organize the conversation in a
    proper sequential order].

    So, the lazy egocentrical inconsiderate top poster who can't read or
    write soon finds that hir posts are invisible to quite a number of other
    readers, because they have killfilled hir.


    --
    Mike Easter
    Mike Easter, Mar 9, 2007
    #7
  8. Ain't that the *truth*! And you don't have
    to do the scrolly thing all the way down to
    the nethers to find out what's going on...
    Near wore slap out a scroll wheel doing that.
    And that's the way they do it in the M$ Public
    groups, so must be something to it.


    "Stickems." <> wrote in
    news:QGiIh.50177$:

    > Top post is the easiest and quickest way to both reply and to follow a
    > discussion.
    >
    >
    > "wege" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >|
    >|
    >| Which is the "proper" way to reply to an email - top-post or
    >| bottom-post?
    >|
    >|
    >| Thanks,
    >| wege
    >|
    >|
    >
    >




    --

    The personification of "ambition" is a flea
    crawling up an elephant's tail with rape on its mind.

    The personification of "delusion" is that flea
    arriving at its climax screaming "suffer baby, suffer."
    Bucky Breeder, Mar 9, 2007
    #8
  9. SgtMinor wrote:

    > The book reading analogy has some problems. If you lay down your book
    > after finishing chapter 4, do you read chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 again
    > before starting on chapter 5?


    That's why you trim the non-relevant points before inter- or
    bottom-posting.


    --
    Blinky RLU 297263
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    Blinky the Shark, Mar 9, 2007
    #9
  10. wege <> wrote in
    news::
    >
    > Which is the "proper" way to reply to
    > an email - top-post or bottom-post?
    >
    > Thanks, > wege



    Really *good* question! It's original, well-composed,
    comprehensive yet concise, and relevant to today's topic.

    Well done!

    The response to be considered may be that either
    top or bottom posting are correct and/or useful
    depending on the customs of the setting in which one
    is participating. Microsoft Public's groups, being
    case-in-point, as utilizing top-posting - but in this
    group, most of the regulars prefer bottom-posting
    because that is the general consensus of the group.

    To me, there's a lot to be said for reading the most
    recent comment, and scrolling back to see where the
    author is coming from; as juxtaposed to downloading
    and then scrolling through a monotonious diatribe to find
    out the the author is totally missing the point of the
    "Subject" field by his/her filter/focus and editing thusly.

    When folks search a topic (as related to this group)
    they want an *answer* first - not scroll through a
    disertation on how Einstein created kibbles and bits.

    However, the poster asked about his *e-Mail*...

    If you've ever done government, commercial, or clinical
    correspondence, you attach previous communications in
    descending order to the back, and sometimes use a cover
    sheet; most-recent first; most-distant last;
    not-necessarily all the way back to the original -
    if those issues have since been resolved. The current
    message is most readily accessable. The preliminary
    stuff, you have to use a little effort to go back to.

    In my experience, most corporate types like the newest
    message (response) on top, with at least the most
    recent appended to the bottom - as a quick reference.
    Some like the whole conversation, because they're doing
    a lot of issues and don't have time to keep records, and
    don't like to be "told" what they've previously said -
    when they can zip down and just jog their memories... etc.

    But, that's just a common communications protocol.

    If something in the original message makes you wonder
    how the sender would prefer the response, you might
    inject a quick comment asking how they'd like to r'cve
    future x-missions... The original sender might appreciate
    your courtesy and it'd enhance your future business options
    and/or appeal.

    "Commuication" implies "agreement"; thus, "When in
    Rome then do as the Romans do" and everything should
    be just fine! (o:

    Have a nice day.

    --

    The personification of "ambition" is a flea
    crawling up an elephant's tail with rape on its mind.

    The personification of "delusion" is that flea
    arriving at its climax screaming "suffer baby, suffer."
    Bucky Breeder, Mar 9, 2007
    #10
  11. wege

    SgtMinor Guest

    Blinky the Shark wrote:
    > SgtMinor wrote:
    >
    >
    >>The book reading analogy has some problems. If you lay down your book
    >>after finishing chapter 4, do you read chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 again
    >>before starting on chapter 5?

    >
    >
    > That's why you trim the non-relevant points before inter- or
    > bottom-posting.
    >
    >


    That's why the book reading analogy is no good. People don't rip
    chapters out of a book just because they're done reading them.
    SgtMinor, Mar 10, 2007
    #11
  12. SgtMinor wrote:
    > Blinky the Shark wrote:
    >> SgtMinor wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>The book reading analogy has some problems. If you lay down your book
    >>>after finishing chapter 4, do you read chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 again
    >>>before starting on chapter 5?

    >>
    >>
    >> That's why you trim the non-relevant points before inter- or
    >> bottom-posting.

    >
    > That's why the book reading analogy is no good. People don't rip
    > chapters out of a book just because they're done reading them.


    They can if they own the book.

    --
    Blinky RLU 297263
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    Blinky the Shark, Mar 10, 2007
    #12
  13. SgtMinor wrote:
    > Blinky the Shark wrote:
    >
    >> SgtMinor wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> The book reading analogy has some problems. If you lay down your
    >>> book after finishing chapter 4, do you read chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4
    >>> again before starting on chapter 5?

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> That's why you trim the non-relevant points before inter- or
    >> bottom-posting.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > That's why the book reading analogy is no good. People don't rip
    > chapters out of a book just because they're done reading them.


    I've been bottom posting for years, but I still think that top posting
    makes more sense. It has to do with the way that Netscape and/or Mozilla
    orders posts I suppose, but I can read one post and then the follow up
    has the pertinant data right on top, easy to find. No scrolling down.
    But years of arguments on this issue has not produced any clear cut
    winner other than that bottom posting is more prevalent.

    Overall, I'm not sure it matters.
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=, Mar 10, 2007
    #13
  14. Rôgêr wrote:
    > SgtMinor wrote:
    >> Blinky the Shark wrote:
    >>
    >>> SgtMinor wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> The book reading analogy has some problems. If you lay down your
    >>>> book after finishing chapter 4, do you read chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4
    >>>> again before starting on chapter 5?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> That's why you trim the non-relevant points before inter- or
    >>> bottom-posting.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> That's why the book reading analogy is no good. People don't rip
    >> chapters out of a book just because they're done reading them.

    >
    > I've been bottom posting for years, but I still think that top posting
    > makes more sense. It has to do with the way that Netscape and/or Mozilla
    > orders posts I suppose, but I can read one post and then the follow up
    > has the pertinant data right on top, easy to find. No scrolling down.
    > But years of arguments on this issue has not produced any clear cut
    > winner other than that bottom posting is more prevalent.


    Actually, it's provided one clear cut winner for the terminally lazy and
    a better clear cut winner for those of us who still have a pulse.


    --
    Blinky RLU 297263
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    Blinky the Shark, Mar 10, 2007
    #14
  15. wege

    SgtMinor Guest

    Blinky the Shark wrote:

    > SgtMinor wrote:
    >
    >>Blinky the Shark wrote:
    >>
    >>>SgtMinor wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>The book reading analogy has some problems. If you lay down your book
    >>>>after finishing chapter 4, do you read chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 again
    >>>>before starting on chapter 5?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>That's why you trim the non-relevant points before inter- or
    >>>bottom-posting.

    >>
    >>That's why the book reading analogy is no good. People don't rip
    >>chapters out of a book just because they're done reading them.

    >
    >
    > They can if they own the book.
    >


    They don't own Usenet.

    --
    "All your base are belong to us."
    SgtMinor, Mar 10, 2007
    #15
  16. wege

    Cam-man Guest

    Blinky the Shark inspired greatness with:

    >Actually, it's provided one clear cut winner for the terminally lazy and
    >a better clear cut winner for those of us who still have a pulse.



    And I like to highlight the text in question, hit reply, and eliminate
    extraneous text.



    --
    "Meanwhile, my company is at China, so We can provide you a relative
    lost price."

    From: "pgtekin" <>
    Message-ID: <>
    Cam-man, Mar 10, 2007
    #16
  17. Cam-man wrote:
    > Blinky the Shark inspired greatness with:
    >
    >>Actually, it's provided one clear cut winner for the terminally lazy and
    >>a better clear cut winner for those of us who still have a pulse.

    >
    > And I like to highlight the text in question, hit reply, and eliminate
    > extraneous text.


    Of course, snipping is a separate issue. Top posters always confuse
    that issue with the top/bottom posting question.

    Surprisingly, over on the mozilla.org server, the rule is NO snipping.


    --
    Blinky RLU 297263
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    Blinky the Shark, Mar 10, 2007
    #17
  18. SgtMinor wrote:
    > Blinky the Shark wrote:
    >
    >> SgtMinor wrote:
    >>>That's why the book reading analogy is no good. People don't rip
    >>>chapters out of a book just because they're done reading them.

    >>
    >> They can if they own the book.

    >
    > They don't own Usenet.


    Not my problem.


    --
    Blinky RLU 297263
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    Blinky the Shark, Mar 10, 2007
    #18
  19. wege

    Frosty Guest

    On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 22:28:11 -0500 in 24hoursupport.helpdesk SgtMinor
    <>, intended to write something
    intelligible, but instead wrote :

    >Blinky the Shark wrote:
    >
    >> SgtMinor wrote:
    >>
    >>>Blinky the Shark wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>SgtMinor wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>The book reading analogy has some problems. If you lay down your book
    >>>>>after finishing chapter 4, do you read chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 again
    >>>>>before starting on chapter 5?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>That's why you trim the non-relevant points before inter- or
    >>>>bottom-posting.
    >>>
    >>>That's why the book reading analogy is no good. People don't rip
    >>>chapters out of a book just because they're done reading them.

    >>
    >>
    >> They can if they own the book.
    >>

    >
    >They don't own Usenet.


    Yes we do!
    Frosty, Mar 10, 2007
    #19
  20. wege

    elaich Guest

    "Stickems." <> wrote in news:QGiIh.50177$3a3.33970
    @newsfe6-win.ntli.net:

    > Top post is the easiest and quickest way to both reply and to follow a
    > discussion.


    Until somebody top posts and trims everything else away, at which point you
    don't have a clue what they are talking about.

    Top posters always assume that everybody has been voraciously reading every
    single post in the thread. This might be true in internal forums, or in an
    email hierarchy, but is very untrue in Usenet.

    Bottom posting (with appropriate clipping) has ALWAYS been the standard in
    Usenet. Most of us just automatically killfile top posters.

    A top poster disturbs the logical discussion, which starts at the top and
    reads to the bottom.

    Would you pick up a book, and read it back to front? READ MY SIG.

    --
    A: Because it disturbs the logical flow of the message.
    Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
    elaich, Mar 10, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Charlie Bress

    Bottom posting a reply to an AOL email

    Charlie Bress, Aug 5, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    41
    Views:
    4,780
    Brian H¹©
    Aug 9, 2003
  2. Galaxy

    Top or Bottom Posting ?

    Galaxy, Sep 4, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    850
    The Old Sourdough
    Sep 7, 2003
  3. Emrys Davies

    Top or bottom posting

    Emrys Davies, Mar 2, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    44
    Views:
    1,108
    dwacon
    Mar 5, 2005
  4. measekite

    Top Bottom Post Issue

    measekite, Dec 24, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    60
    Views:
    1,103
    Andy Turner
    Dec 31, 2004
  5. zekolas

    OT. Top or Bottom post?

    zekolas, Aug 13, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    639
    Venus Ventura [Retracted]
    Aug 14, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page