Re: "In" the field or "On" the field

[Brad <kiwi -at- BEST -dot- COM>]

>
> Brad,
>
> The socially accepted standard method for replying to email is to put your
> response at the top, followed by a snippet or summary of the original.
>
> This is because anybody following the thread has already seen the
> original.
>  Burying your reply at the bottom, like this, forces many people to reread
> material they''ve already read or hit the DELETE key.
>
> This is especially true if the gist of the message to which you are
> replying is contained in the subject field.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Ed Gregory

How ironic that your reply *followed* my reply, the very flow that you don't
find socially acceptable!

*Socially* acceptable? Versus what? Socially unacceptable?!? Surely, you
jest!

We see both approaches to replies in email. And what if there are multiple
questions at hand? Do you advocate divorcing the questions from the answers?

But this is a relevant point to communications in general: How do we express
the flow of communications? And that was an issue I brought up in the
regards to orienting the reader.

Since these topics in this forum often take on the structure of questions
and answers, does it make sense to state the answers *before* the question
at hand?

In common communications, do we say "Q&A" or "A&Q"? Clearly the former is
far more conventional and "socially acceptable and standard".

Perhaps in email correspondence many people choose to precede a question
with an answer because it is a matter of convenience at the expense of
appropriate communications flow? It *is* convenient to plop the
pointer-cursor-doohickey on the first line in the message area and start
typing, isn't it?

At least "A&Q's" are the acceptable flow in the Jeopardy television game
show. This isn't Jeopardy.

The bottom line: In email forums, both flows are common and acceptable. Not
everyone automatically knows the question to the answer. Some do. Some
don't.

 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=