From: Mark Foster (no email)
Date: Wed Jan 03 2007 - 15:26:00 EST
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 05:44:28PM +1300, Mark Foster wrote:
>> So why the big deal?
>
> Because it's very rude -- like top-posting, or full-quoting, or sending
> email marked up with HTML. Because it's an unprovoked threat. Because
> it's an attempt to unilaterally shove an unenforceable contract down
> the throats of everyone reading it. Because it's a tip-off that the
> sender does not value the time or resources of recipients. Because it's
> insulting. Because (borrowing from first link below) it's simply too
> stupid for words.
>
I'm as much of a netiquette-fiend as almost anyone i've ever met, but I do
feel that there is a tendency to spend far too much time complaining about
perceived rudeness and not enough time with focus on the point behind the
message.
No matter how hard you try, top-posting is here to stay. MS Outlook has
seen to that. So instead of taking the extreme approach (top posting =
bad) I favour a compromise approach (inconsistent posting = bad;
multiple responses to multiple individual points from a single email in a
top post = bad) - which I like to think is more driven by commonsense than
the need to exert ones old-school-ness on the rest of the populace. I
can't be the only one...
I don't like disclaimers either. Theres a reason I use a privately
managed mail system for contributing ot mailing lists, and not my
corporate address (which, yes, gets a multiline legal disclaimer added to
every post that leaves...)
But there are worse offenses. HTML emails - every author has a choice
there, so that ones unforgivable IMHO. Top-Posting and Legalese Addendums
to messages are both things that an end-user in a COE corporate environment has little control
over.
Mark.
|
|
|