Hi, On Mon, 2011-05-30 at 10:42 -0500, Roland Hughes wrote:
> 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. > From what I understand, top posting is generally preferred for general business communication. The problem with bottom posting is that one must scroll done to see the answer and there is a tendency to edit the text, which may be unacceptable in court. When viewing edited text one could claim the editing changed the meaning of the original if involved in a law suit - a very nasty legal issue. -- Jay Lozier jsloz...@gmail.com -- 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
