[coryrau]

I have a similar system that works better for me.

I write the message I think I want to send and let it all out.

Important note: I NEVER fill in the recipient address while I do this in case I accidentally hit the Send button.

I then save it as a draft, wait the 24 hours you suggest, re-read it, invariably edit it heavy-handedly and then send the result...that is if I even feel the need to send it at all after the cooling off period.

This allows me to vent and work the issue out in my own head while avoiding the embarrassment of having others think I'm a hot-headed nincompoop.

Cory

[baldy]

I believe it is more properly "nghign-cqum-phuhiep", although when I spell it that way, I usually get alot of grief from others.

[silentway]

I disagree strongly regarding the suggestion to always keep replies in chronological order. Many (if not most) situations require reverse-chronological order. If people don't take the time as you suggest to concisely summarize previous contributions to the conversation (face it, no one does), it becomes unreadably long. It's a drag to have to scroll down through 15 previous messages just to get to the new comment.
And, editing down the previous comments poorly or with bias can lead to major misunderstandings. Many situations require the full, unedited history to remain. We can still drop a line or two of quotation into the new reply where needed.
By your reasoning (that nothing changes just because of the "newfangled" medium), all email replies should also be as instantaneous as a phone call... or, wait, should it be only one-way, like television? Or, maybe there should be a pigeon involved? Should we all be texting in Latin?
All kidding aside, it would be great if the next generation of email protocol allowed us to choose the method of displaying the thread (by an ID stamp tying multiple emails together as a thread, the client app could treat them as separately sortable blocks). But until then, I'll prefer, as many others do, reverse-chronological order.

n4hhe said:

Guess words no forming reply
the point to words said one, should original message's text.

The result doesn't apply.

[n4hhe]

silentway said:

I disagree strongly regarding the suggestion to always keep replies in chronological order. Many (if not most) situations require reverse-chronological order. If people don't take the time as you suggest to concisely summarize previous contributions to the conversation (face it, no one does), it becomes unreadably long. It's a drag to have to scroll down through 15 previous messages just to get to the new comment.

I let you make one of my unsaid points, that if one is too lazy ("don't take the time") to form a proper reply then that person doesn't care enough to be worthy of being read.

Quote

And, editing down the previous comments poorly or with bias can lead to major misunderstandings. Many situations require the full, unedited history to remain. We can still drop a line or two of quotation into the new reply where needed.

If one edits quoted text and alters the meaning then the evidence exists to hang the editor by the neck. Or, it will show where one misunderstands the other. One should already have the full original text from a prior reply. Or if its a mailing list one just joined there is almost always an archive.

Quote

By your reasoning (that nothing changes just because of the "newfangled" medium), all email replies should also be as instantaneous as a phone call... or, wait, should it be only one-way, like television? Or, maybe there should be a pigeon involved? Should we all be texting in Latin?

The correct way to form a reply reproduces the conversational format replicating as close as the media permits to the phone call.

[silentway]

I wish I lived on your world. That would be Utopia. Kindly share the coordinates of this mythical planet, Shouldium, of the system Proper-Correctus. We need to repopulate somewhere off Earth.
;-)

[Chris Breen]

Mac Manners just whispered to me that a stubborn adherence to certain "rules" shows an unattractive inflexibility. For example, there are times when one does not have the leisure to edit a long thread and that thread merits only a short response. In such cases, a simple reply, posted above the previous message (in order to save scrolling to read that reply) is acceptable.

[tiggerr129]

Wondercow I too have a problem with alot and a lot. I once bought a lot (as opposed to many) of the same toy from ebay. There were 25 wooden vehicles with of course Winnie the Pooh characters as the operators.

It was difficult to express this to people, nieces, nephews and their parents when I would give these away. They knew I collected this sort of thing and didn't want to take something from my "collection" Of course there was also the inference that I was giving them a used toy. If I explained that I bought a lot of new toys, they thought I bought many different used toys. Even if the toys were in the original box.

I am also reminded of a movie where the main character said that she liked something alot alot alot. What ever happened to very very much. Oh well.

Thanks for the email etiquette lesson. I tell my students about the bbc and all caps frequently. It doesn't always sink in.

[tiggerr129]

This is a question I'd like to ask to you folks, not a comment. (as you all previously stated inflection cannot be "heard" in email)

Is it permissible when replying to a long email interspersed with many questions, to place your answers immediately following the question (in a different color or font). I frequently send emails with many deep philosophical questions to my pastor and he does this. It makes it easier for me to see what question he is answering.

I have sent similar emails to someone and by placing her answers at the end (or even before) my email, it made it easy for her to avoid answering the ones she didn't want to answer.

So I am not questioning my Pastor's etiquette, but wanting to know for myself if it is appropriate for me to do so.

Thanks

[mtpalms]

tiggerr129, I have always replied to personal emails like this too, but if the email goes to multiple recipients or is being forwarded oner and over, conversations can get confusing. When faced with this situation, I prefer the reverse order method, btw, freshest response first.

One thing I have noticed about having to use Outlook Express in Windows at work, is that it doesn't handle quote levels as well as Mail, so answering question by question as you and I like to do, isn't as good of an option as answering at either the top or bottom of the page.

Regarding the topic in general, 'email ettiquette' articles seem to get trotted out frequently, yet I still see email that breaks most of these rules, particularly using Cc instead of Bcc, which seems like a no brainer to me. How can so many not yet be aware of them?

I don't get mass joke/chain letter email very often, but when I do, the nature of these emails is often indicative of the sharing nature of the sender. More often than not, the sender is usually nonplussed as to why I would rather not receive the "joke of the day", "sign this petition", "everyone ought to read this", or "this is an outrage" emails (the last 3 usually easily debunked by snopes) they have soooo helpfully forwarded to everyone in their address book. However, this vital 'information' isn't so important that they feel compelled to cherry pick their recipients. The attitude is, if you don't want my joke of the day emails, then you are not going to get my periodic updates about my family, because that would require extra effort on my part. This is particularly sticky when dealing with family.

[tiggerr129]

Thanks. I use Gmail because I often use different computers and it allows for this.

The mail I particularly dislike are the ones that tell me that if I do not send it to ten of my friends in the next 3 hours, I will suffer some dire consequences.

I answer this with a polite but firm response that I can't understand how my "friends" would wish me ill will. I remind them that:
Some people don't have ten friends
Some people don't always get to their mail with in the allotted 3 hours and finally
replying to and receiving this sort of mass message on a company computer can constitute theft of company property and in some cases is a cause for termination.

Some one brought the entire regional computer system of a large and well know charitable organization where I worked to a stand still when some idiot hit send all.

I haven't received any of them in a long time, and I still do get email from some of these friends. Some folks don't even look upon it like this. If I do send something particularly moving, I always delete the extortion.

I have written about this thing on my web site (mainly aimed at kids) and I will add some of the items from this list, (when I get time) right.

[n4hhe]

Chris Breen said:

Mac Manners just whispered to me that a stubborn adherence to certain "rules" shows an unattractive inflexibility.

One often hears that as a "defense" for poor spelling.

Quote

For example, there are times when one does not have the leisure to edit a long thread and that thread merits only a short response.

In other words you are too lazy to drag your mouse over the quoted text that apparently you are also too lazy to read and use that to justify re-sending it?

Quote

In such cases, a simple reply, posted above the previous message (in order to save scrolling to read that reply) is acceptable.

As I said, "Too lazy".

[n4hhe]

tiggerr129 said:

Is it permissible when replying to a long email interspersed with many questions, to place your answers immediately following the question (in a different color or font). I frequently send emails with many deep philosophical questions to my pastor and he does this. It makes it easier for me to see what question he is answering.

Email savvy pastor, you have. Is not only permissible but as you have observed is also the most effective communication format available via email. Question - Answer. Alternating speakers just like a live conversation. Trim the parts you are not talking about in the reply.

Bulk quoted text under a top-post is usually rendered unreadable within an iteration or two. This is unrefutable evidence top-posters almost never try to read this text because if they did try to read it they would know what sort of garbage they were sending, and resending and re-resending.

[Chris Breen]

n4hhe said:

One often hears that as a "defense" for poor spelling.

And even more often when it's true.

Quote

> For example, there are times when one does not have the leisure to edit a long thread and that thread merits only a short response.

In other words you are too lazy to drag your mouse over the quoted text that apparently you are also too lazy to read and use that to justify re-sending it?

Interesting interpretation, but no. It's possible that you have all the time in the world, but not everyone does. There are instances when it's necessary to reply to an email as quickly as possible and there isn't time to edit a message.

[n4hhe]

Chris Breen said:

> > For example, there are times when one does not have the leisure to edit a long thread and that thread merits only a short response.
>
> In other words you are too lazy to drag your mouse over the quoted text that apparently you are also too lazy to read and use that to justify re-sending it?

Interesting interpretation, but no. It's possible that you have all the time in the world, but not everyone does. There are instances when it's necessary to reply to an email as quickly as possible and there isn't time to edit a message.

If a snippet of message prompts a reply then only that snippet should be resent with the reply.

Your "time" argument only serves to reinforce my earlier statement that those who can not form a proper reply are not worth the time to read, help, or otherwise reply.

In the modern GUI world, of which Macintosh was a significant innovator, trimming a reply takes only a second or two of click-drag delete. Much faster to delete text than to read it. If you are not going to read that text then why would you re-send it? And if you did read it then you certainly do have the time available to trim it.

Certainly there are rare occasions when time does not permit, but that is not the crux of this discussion. The problem is those who never make the time to present a quality attempt at communication. Is exactly the same as with those who will not take the time or effort to check spelling, no matter that live spelling check is a nearly universal feature.

One of the driving forces in the popularity of online forums has been that top-posters are thwarted, which greatly increases the quality of the archive for future reference. The sad news is that top-posters don't realize how they have been manipulated, and to the mess they are making via email.