[PLUG] Quoting

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Fri Jan 9 02:48:01 UTC 2004


Err... how about "Learn to wrap your lines!"?

And I assume throughout this that you mean "posting" instead of "quoting"
pretty much throughout.  For example, you refer to your own message as an
example of "top-quoting", but your quotation is at the bottom and your new
material at the top.

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Jeff Schwaber wrote:
> 1) Top-quoting is incredibly readable--far more readable than bottom-quoting

That's a matter of taste (and your mail reader's presentation) and totally
incorrect when ANY context is required (beyond the subject).

> 2) Inline quoting, different from bottom-quoting, is the most
> appropriate solution for replies where the reply assumes context, and is
> certainly a good thing to point out to people who reply out of context
> at the top of the post.

But do you put the new material before or after the inline quote?  After,
of course.  It's a response.

> I've seen that fairly rarely (lately), though.

Don't know where you've been.  It's pretty much the norm everywhere I
read.

> 3) I have yet to hear a good argument for bottom quoting.

Well, there's this:

A: 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?

In other words, there is context to consider and context changes the
meaning of some words, phrases, sentences, or whole messages.  If you read
a person's post and then read the quoted material below (as one would,
reading top to bottom), you will find that the meaning of the new material
is modified or enhanced by this refresher.  Hence, you'll probably want to
go back and re-read the new material with this context in mind.  That
means you read the message twice instead of once through -- which you
would have done had the message come from someone who quoted judiciously
and responded after the quoted material.

If you're not responding to any part of the message directly, don't quote
it.  Your subject line should be telling enough.  In the case that it
isn't (threads gone far afield, or what have you), then quote a tiny bit.
A few words carefully chosen is usually all it takes.

Remember that writing is done for the reader and making it as easy for
them is the number one priority.  Your own convenience goes on the
sideline.  You're the one trying to communicate, after all.

> I also note that there aren't knee-jerk responses of "respond at the
> top!" from the other camp, and since this is primarily a question of
> taste, it makes little sense to knee-jerk response.

I completely disagree that it's primarily a question of taste.  And the
"other camp" doesn't respond to the methods of bottom-posters because they
have nothing to complain about.  Bottom-posters aren't frustrating the
reading habits of people.  In fact, they're being courteous and
thoughtful.

One could also argue that since top-posters are too lazy to judiciously
quote or consider their reader, they're likely too lazy to give their
opinion on the subject.

> This is a multiple-person mailing list, and different people like it
> different, so until someone creates an email format that allows me to
> specify "this is a contextual reply" and let the mailing reader decide,
> based on user preference, where to put the reply, I think it's kind of
> offensive to yell at everyone.

It's not a matter of preference.  I am choosing to format this message
this way because that is how I want my reader to read it.  I choose the
structure of the message that conveys my meaning in the best way I know
how.  Restructuring the message could potentially change the meaning of my
words or at least take away from some nuance which I'm attempting to
convey.

> One of the polls I've read

Well, unfortunately, human cognition is not managed democratically.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org




More information about the PLUG mailing list