> > In this case, we can't really see which bits Daniel has written himself,
> > and which bits are quotes from previous messages from Matthew
> at least one
> > other unnamed person whio also appears to have contributed to
> the text in
> > the email.
> Actually, on a completely different topic and mostly from a social
> commentary perspective, I've noticed this quite a bit in my transition
> from engineering/tech focused fields to having more dealings with
> management. I used to be a firmware engineer to a printer company, then
> a consultant writing .NET, now I write Perl and PHP for an insurance
> company. It seems like the further you get away from hackers and the
> more you get towards non-computer folks (product managers, engineers
> from other disciplines, my mother, etc.), the more people simply can't
> handle inline comments and what we consider "proper" use of email.
> Hence, they top-post, quote incorrectly, are imprecise in their use of
> language and explanations, etc. The thing is, I can't figure out why - I
> try and explain why these approaches are better, and they seem to make
> an effort, and end up just getting more confused. It must be some
> difference in the way they think vs. the way I think.
I think they simply don't spend as much time sending messages with large
amounts of text constructed from multiple email exchanges
(send-reply-reply-reply...). When they do, usually they are exchanging
email with people who are using the same email client (MS Outlook for
product managers, marketing/sales, etc.), so replies tend to be formatted in
the same manner.
Finally, engineers tend to be more anal-retentive than the general public.
;-) I can't tell you how many times the subject of "how to properly
construct replies" has come up in my 20 years in the engineering field. I'm
looking at my Inbox now and can see six messages sent over a one-hour period
about this subject, and they're in a mailing list about Rockbox, for crying
Let it go, Poindexters!
Received on 2007-03-03