Re: [libreoffice-users] <OT>Re: Sun Weblog Publisher broken

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
jslozier@gmail.com

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+help@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