Editing and/or responding within the "original message" is considered tampering with evidence. Everyone is supposed to TOP POST, not only to save developer time, but to allow the legal teams to read from the bottom up on the last message identifying how things progressed this far.
On Mon, 2011-05-30 at 17:19 +0200, Joep L. Blom wrote: > On 30/05/11 15:58, Roland Hughes wrote: > > Joep, > > > > Professional IT workers never remove any portion of the post because > > when you go through a SOX audit, and then through court, you get in a > > whole lot of trouble for doing it. > > > > Now, people who once got paid for writing a program or use Microsoft > > products may well have different opinions since their not the ones > > working on multi-million dollar projects for Fortunate 500 companies. > > > > There is a long drawn out history of people deleting what they didn't > > read then denying things were said. > > > > Bottom posting wastes vast quantities of developers time scrolling to > > the end. Full quoting is a policy mandated by most major corporations > > and IT organizations because it allows management (and the legal team) > > to jump into the conversation at any point. > > > > I wouldn't even be on this list had the Web site been designed by > > software professionals instead of whoever was used. > > > > On Mon, 2011-05-30 at 12:05 +0200, Joep L. Blom wrote: > > > >> On 30/05/11 08:45, Roland Hughes wrote: > >>> Neither bottom nor interleaved posting methods are used by professional > >>> IT workers. Microsoft developers yes, but not professionals. > >>> > >> > >> Sigh! Roland your remark is utter nonsens. Many lists courteously > >> request to bottom post but also request clipping. Professional IT > >> workers remove unnecessary wording from replies and adhere to > >> courteously requested rules. > >> Joep > >> > >> > >> > > > > > Roland, > Permit me to disagree. If you need E-mails for court representation it > is best to furnish the original E-mails not the parts of text in answers > to E-mails. You answer the relevant portions of an E-mail as the > originator has the original text. I don't think a court will accept the > umptieth repeat of an original E-mail. But I live in the Netherlands and > I have no idea how convoluted American lawyers and justices actually > reason. Well, that goes for Dutch members of that kind also. It is a > breed that I, as a simple scientist, not understand so therefore your > reasoning might be right. > Joep > -- Roland Hughes, President Logikal Solutions (630)-205-1593 http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com http://www.infiniteexposure.net No U.S. troops have ever lost their lives defending our ethanol reserves. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
