[Tfug] top/bottom and middle posting

[Bexley Hall]

Hi, Rob,

--- On Wed, 2/18/09, Robert Hunter <hunter at tfug.org> wrote:

> However, I wonder: how much of that awkwardness is the
> result of a writing style that has fallen into disuse?

Or, perhaps, just less stringent emphasis on proper
grammar, etc.?  <shrug>

> For example, how many of us remember the days of
> pre-electronic correspondence, when we used to write
> "letters"?  No, no, I don't mean
> the sort of letters that were written by light of candle
> with quill
> and parchment -- I'd be surprised if anyone here was
> that old, except maybe Don. ;-)

Naw, I never got into that sort of thing.  I could never
figure out how to fold the stone tablets to fit into those
little envelopes... (and the postage was a real killer!)

> But certainly there are people on this list who remember
> writing a page or two of composition, sealing it in a
> stamped envelope, and mailing it off, yes?  For those of
> you who belong to this aging group of humanoids,

and, are not *yet* suffering from dementia,

> please answer the following question:
> on average, how many block quotes did you use in your
> hand-crafted letters of those days gone by?  My guess is very few.

Different context.  Think about it:

First, your letter was most likely *not* photocopied and
sent along to 2, 10, 50 other people at the same time.
And, the results of each of those participants having to
be reintegrated into your reply(ies).

Second, you only received such correspondence once each
week (per party) -- or less.

Third, you only were engaged in a handful of correspondences
at any given time.

D, there was often a considerable emotional tie with
your correspondents -- enough to motivate you to spend an
hour or more on *each* correspondence.

EightyFifth, often the content was *not* highly technical -- no need
to be nitting picks.  And, if something that "sensitive" did
become an issue, you *would* quote the original comment *knowing*
that you have physical evidence (the original letter in the
sender's own pen) on which to fall back.

VI-th, since the volume of mail was so light, it was not
difficult to keep the previously received letter and, with
this *current* correspondence, "frame" the context of the
other party's replies (note that keeping a copy of *your*
sent letter was considerably more difficult)

FortySeventh, you typically proceeded through the "dialogue"
in a single direction -- rarely backing up and/or jumping
around (as is often the case when others jump into a
discussion asynchronously)

<shrug>  Like many other things, the parallel doesn't hold
up to closer scrutiny, IMO.

I have a friend who just can't figure out how to quote
original text in replies.  So, mail I receive looks like
a "fresh letter" each time.   But, much time is spent
restating things that I had asked.  E.g., "The four-legged
creatures I refered to are dogs, not cats (as you had
assumed)"; "Yes, I attend this conference every year".

I have another friend who insists on top-posting always
("that's where the cursor was placed when I hit REPLY").
But, most of our emails are very brief -- like non-real-time
chat -- so it's no big deal to remember what was said
in the last message "a few hours ago".

When I correspond with folks who are blind, I make very
deliberate changes to the form *and* content of my
notes -- and, make allowances for the fact that the
replies that I receive are usually *not* compliant
with the sorts of things I would expect from other
correspondents.

Likewise, when I am writing technical stuff, I am
considerably more pedantic in content and form.

And, of course, we've all been victimized (?) by those
clueless masses who insist on forwarding crap ^H^H^H
wonderfully thoughtful jokes with a cascade of nested
"To:" and "Cc:" headers just so you know *every* person
who had the priviledge of enjoying this little gem
before you...  :-/

I think senders/recipients decide how much they
are willing to expend writing/reading to participate
in these exchanges (whether it is private email,
USENET posting, other fora, etc.).  And, as Claude (?)
had said, how third parties peeking into these exchanges
regard them -- and elect to participate in -- is up to
those third parties.

<shrug>
--phred