Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index


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

Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.