14 ms·
BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful
- dx87 7y agoIt's not a standard, it's the same as TLDR. The only difference is that it's before the content instead of after.
- killjoywashere 7y agoYes, the key difference is that tl;dr is, by placement, a sort of self-effacing, humorous admission of self absorption while BLUF is all about teaching every member of a multi-million person organization to write empathically. Not bad for 4 letters. But, yes, if you just move the tl;dr to the top, that would be a great first step. As a participant in this arena, I can say my observation has been that the real experts often omit the term BLUF because it gets in the way of their message. Omitting BLUF is not a sign of expertise. Far from it. But the really expert empaths know when to break the rules.
- outworlder 7y ago> It's not a standard, it's the same as TLDR It is a standard, see elsewhere on this discussion.
- derekp7 7y agoThis is a sore spot for me, someone sending an IM with a quick "Got a minute?", which pulls me out of my thought zone. And once I answer back, I have no idea how long it is going to take for them to tell me what their issue is (could be 30 seconds, or a couple minutes -- I've often waited for 10 minutes, then got up to go for a meeting, and they get upset when I don't answer). I'd much rather them just tell me what problem they are having up front, so I cat least give them an answer and get back to work.
- edw 7y agoMuch of my previous life: — ut? — Ugh what? [ Stare at screen for what feels like an hour. ] — nvm
- edoceo 7y agoQ: "Got a minute?" A: "No" Then close the app/tab and crank up that Led Zeppelin so you can GSD
- lbotos 7y agoI think about this a lot, and I call it "atomic messaging" in my head. You need to be able to address the message in full as if it were a pop up. (As messages often are via notifications) If the message requires follow up for clarity it's not atomic enough. Example: Did you ask him if what the results were? -> Did you ask Jim what the results of the 2019 Survey are? It's really helped me avoid being that person, and I've asked it of others with varying results.
- insulanus 7y agoYes! This applies just as much to email correspondence. I think of it as resolving all references. (Can I make up a new TLA? RAR!)
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- baliex 7y agoFor that, there's this: http://www.nohello.com/2013/01/please-dont-say-just-hello-in-chat.html http://www.nohello.com/2013/01/please-dont-say-just-hello-in....
- shandor 7y agoI have a friend leading the IT team in a company of ~300, and he goes nuts if people keep probing him with "are you here?". He's a very chill person, but the problem was getting out of hand, so he started pasting users back with just a link to a page explaining why one does not simply do that. Some people took offense, but mostly the situation improved. It was along the lines of [1], but not sure if it's exactly the same. [1] https://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html https://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html
- Buttons840 7y agoI learned this from #python on irc.freenode.org. "Don't ask to ask, just ask" is their rule, and the frequently repeat it.
- kajmagnusmobile 7y agoWhat about replying with a link to this article :- )
- Donald 7y agoLike everything else in the US military, there is a written standard to support this style. See Army Regulation 25-50, Section IV "The Army Writing Style" https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/r25_50.pdf https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/r25_50.... > Army writing will be concise, organized, and to the point. Two essential requirements include putting the main point at the beginning of the correspondence (bottom line up front) and using the active voice (for example, “You are entitled to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year”).
- herdrick 7y agoThat's the passive voice! The explanation for why their example of the active voice is in fact the passive voice is right below, in section "e". That's pretty funny.
- alexjm 7y agoTrying to make it active requires moving the key information to the end of the sentence: "The time you spent in training last year entitles you to jump pay [for that time]." Although style guides like this one usually advise against using passive voice because it makes things harder to read, clarity should be the goal, not just active voice. This is a good example of a reason you might prefer passive voice: because the verb's subject isn't the focus. Passive voice can also be clearer than active voice when there's no relevant or meaningful actor to use as the subject.
- jejones3141 7y agoPerhaps "You deserve jump pay for time spent in training last year"?
- herdrick 7y agoOr "The Army will pay you for ..."
- dragonwriter 7y ago
- somacert 7y agoMakes sense, depending on complexity my email sections tend to be. Executive summary: Summary: In general: Specifically: Now I feel all sorts of validated for being pedantic about the whole thing.
- nvahalik 7y agoYes. In most of the companies I work with, there tend to be large email threads. It's not uncommon for a dozen people to be on a thread once I get snowballed into it. There are not only engineers but usually C-level folks as well. By the time I make my reply, I usually end up writing "bottom up" just like you are saying... I write the detail, then summarize it above and then try to answer the top 1 or 2 questions I know the top-level folks will want answered at the bottom—even if it's just "we know what the problem is and it's been fixed or will be fixed shortly". I think it's comforting for the top-level folks to see the respect that answers their questions quickly and it also makes them feel good that additional detail is available for those who care.
- jacquesm 7y agoFunny, this is more or less exactly how we write our reports. But I've never heard of 'BLUF'. It seems to be the most logical way in which to write a report given that attention decays over the reading of a piece and that active voice trumps passive voice when writing about real world events and situations, it simply makes the writing more compelling.
- voidhorse 7y agoKind of ironic that a style meant to lay the cards on the table is called bluff.
- kstrauser 7y agoI appreciate that the first line of the article says: > BLUF is a military communications acronym—it stands for “bottom line up front”—that’s designed to enforce speed and clarity in reports and emails. ...thus following its own advice. One sentence in and I know what it's talking about.
- EForEndeavour 7y agoIt still mildly infuriates me that the link text doesn't simply expand the acronym. Infinitely better: Bottom Line Up Front: A military standard to make writing more powerful
- SllX 7y agoYou enforced speed and lost clarity. You wrote “...to make writing more powerful.” which states nothing of value while “...designed to enforce speed and clarity in reports and emails.” tells you precisely that it was designed with the objectives of enforcing speed and enforcing clarity in the specific contexts of [military] reports and [military] emails. With BLUF the burden is on the writer to be clear and concise, not on the reader to make the connections the writer hopes the reader will make. Leading with BLUF and expanding the acronym later in the sentence leads with the form in which you are most likely to encounter BLUF discussed in a professional context rather than expecting the reader to read the expanded form first and make the connection that “BLUF” is the contracted form of “Bottom Line Up Front” and “Bottom Line Up Front” is the expanded form of “BLUF”.
- workaway 7y agoHe's referring to expanding the acronym in the headline. He didn't write “...to make writing more powerful," the original author did.
- SllX 7y agoJesus Christ how did I miss that? I’ll own that mistake and leave my original comment up unedited as a testimony to my unobservant off the cuff commentary.
- killjoywashere 7y agoI have a boss who would treat the subject line of his emails like SMS. The body of the email is often blank. I have adopted that. It makes BLUF look slow and awkward.
- ska 7y agoThat works really well if it finishes with EOM or <eom>. Otherwise it's unclear if there is missing content.
- anotherevan 7y agoI use to do this (with an "EOM" on the end) but gmail doesn't lend itself well to this.
- sitkack 7y agothis was a common msft corp email technique in the 90s. it worked really well<eom>
- kajmagnusmobile 7y agoWe did this too at my first job, and I also included SOM and MOM for start and middle.
- teddyh 7y agoSounds like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism)
- yellowapple 7y agoFrom one of the article's comments: "Question: would you use BLUF in every blog intro? Storytelling intros can be inspiring, for example." If every blog intro followed BLUF, then maybe I'd be actually interested in reading them. Storytelling intros only inspire me to lose interest immediately and close the tab.
- DoreenMichele 7y agoMy dad was career military. So was my ex husband. This military communications standard probably goes a long ways towards explaining why people seem to either think I'm rude, crude and socially unacceptable or refreshingly direct with no BS.
- stebann 7y agoI completely identify myself with this. Many people told me that I was rude because of my way I communicate in workplace. But since then, the group I'm working with got used to me and some of them have adopted this style. Sometimes we're really hurry with the schedules and continuous feedback among us has helped us to meet that schedules.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- joe_the_user 7y agoOne unfortunate thing about the opposite, very polite or "guess" communicator, is that sometimes when one provides all necessary data immediately, that communication is simply not heard. Very polite communicators actually can have trouble processing a situation that's fully laid out before without the protocols of etiquette. It's heck of annoying but one can learn to adjust to it also.
- DoreenMichele 7y agoI'm aware. I actually think that sort of thing is a major underlying problem in male-female communication. When a woman says and does the same things as a man, it can get interpreted completely differently due to either the simple fact that she is female or due to subtle differences between "male culture" and "female culture" so to speak. (as just one example.) I get that there is no single standard that works everywhere all the time. But I've personally found it very helpful to realize that low context culture is not somehow "socially worse" than high context culture. Viewing it that way implicitly promotes xenophobia, which ends up being justification for things like white supremacy -- ie "You people who are not like us are fundamentally Doing It Wrong because you are doing it different from how we would handle it." It was helpful to me to realize this is a legitimate form of communication that faces specific pitfalls in the world and not some sort of character defect on my end. That helps me make judgment calls about when to approach things one way versus another and also helps me make my peace with "You can't please all of the people all of the time."
- Glyptodon 7y agoDoesn't sound too much different than traditional inverted pyramid news style.
- rdtsc 7y agoI've been doing this for a while and didn't know it had a name. Sometimes I add an explicit snarky heading like this: TL;DR: <Main point> <Long explanation> However, when writing comments on HN or other forums I go for what I call a "fireside chat" approach. Complete with metaphors, euphemisms and lots more sarcasm. Mostly because I find it more entertaining and enjoyable.
- tyingq 7y agoThe USAF has a similar manual. Google for "USAF Tongue Quill" and the PDF is the first result.
- anotherevan 7y agoI wish more news site articles would practice this. So many times I'm scanning the damn thing for the bottom line to decide if I want to read all the waffle or not.
- sitkack 7y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism)
- anotherevan 7y agoYeah, I'm aware of that. I wish more journalists put it into practice though.
- sitkack 7y agoIt was followed in print. But ad clicks have inverted it so that we scroll through all the monetization.
- cryptonector 7y agoBack before the Internet became users' most important news source, newspapers used to do have a hierarchical structure to their stories. The headline would tell you a fair bit, then the first paragraph or two would tell you all the salient points, and each subsequent paragraph would add details. Now it seems that the important things are buried at the end of the article. The idea seems to be to hook you in and make you keep reading. You hope to find what you're looking for, and in the process stay longer on this page, possibly getting distracted by ads and (intrasite) links.
- woliveirajr 7y agoor make you view all the ads that appear in the page :)
- incompatible 7y ago
- CalChris 7y agoI naturally write in an inductive style, data+evidence followed by conclusion. And gosh darn, don't I just feel brilliant when, after I've laid out all my evidence and my deserving reader has been inevitably led to the only possible conclusion, mine, they agree with the only possible conclusion, mine. My reader is so lucky to have me as a writer. Well, at least I was made aware of this particular conceit by some rhet profs at Berkeley. But really, anyone, myself included, who writes inductively in a professional setting should be fired for having wasted their readers' time. Luckily, HN is not a professional setting.
- kajmagnusmobile 7y agoThat was an inductive style comment itself? :- ) at least not BLUF (it didn't start with "they should be fired")
- fargle 7y agotrue story: a number of years ago I used this acronym in conversation. None of my coworkers had heard of it. They quickly googled it and ended up here: https://www.bluf.com https://www.bluf.com which really confused them.
- bakery2k 7y agoI came across this recently, when writing a blog post about a puzzle I solved. I wasn't sure whether to structure the post "chronologically", telling a story: 1. Here's an interesting puzzle. 2, 3, 4, 5. These are the steps I took to solve it. 6. Hence the solution is X. or using BLUF: 1. Here's an interesting puzzle. 2. I found the solution is X. 3, 4, 5, 6. These are the steps I took to find that solution. I'm still not sure which structure would be the best choice in which situation. Are there any guidelines?
- sitkack 7y agoTeach a person to fish. 1 maps to 2. And how it got there is [3,6]. This is absolutely (that word) the right way to go.
- ryanmarsh 7y agoBottom line up front does seem a little like tl;dr up front. TLDRUF?
- torstenvl 7y agoI think it's more like: 0. Statement of fact that constitutes the solution. 1. Here's the issue 2. The solution is X because (preview of analysis.) 3, 4, 5, 6. This is how we determined that. Imagine that your BLUF is a tweet announcing your findings and linking to a PDF of the rest of your e-mail. Example: BLUF: CONCUR, WITH CONDITIONS- The civilians may participate in the breacher training, but there are requirements to meet. You asked whether civilian law enforcement agencies (CLEAs) may participate in breacher training on a space- and time-available basis. I have no legal objection, provided the CLEAs certify that receiving the training from commercial or other non-DoD sources would be impractical due to cost or time, and provided the request is routed for concurrence through the chain of command for approval by ASN(M&RA). Additionally, anything beyond marginal costs must be paid by the CLEAs. Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 273 (b) DoDI 1325.21 (c) SECNAVINST 5820.7C (d) DEPSECDEF Memo of 29 Jun 96, DoD Training Support to U.S. Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies (e) 10 U.S.C. § 2012 Authority. Reference (a) grants authority to SECDEF “to train . . . civilian law enforcement officials in the operation and maintenance of equipment.” In paragraphs 1.f and 5.c of enclosure (3) to reference (b), SECDEF granted approval authority to the service Secretaries. SECNAV issued guidance in reference (c), including the requirement for cost reimbursement beyond marginal costs. Under references (b) and (c), ASN(M&RA) – in consultation with ASD(HD&GS) – may authorize the use of up to 49 DoD personnel for training; installation commanders or commanders of unit training centers may authorize the use of DoD equipment and facilities. Analysis. CLEAs may participate in training if all of the following criteria are met: - Extent. The training cannot be large-scale, elaborate, or advanced military training. Advanced military training, defined in reference (d), is “high intensity training” pertaining to interactions with a “criminal suspect” or “when the potential for a violent confrontation exists.” The breacher training will satisfy this requirement. - Resources. Non-DoD training must be unfeasible or impractical due to cost or time, and the training cannot compromise military preparedness. You indicated that we have sufficient “depth” to accommodate the CLEAs without compromising preparedness, but the CLEAs must show that non-DoD options are unfeasible or impractical. - Role Limitations. DoD personnel must not directly participate in fundamentally civilian law enforcement operations, and there must be no reasonable likelihood of confrontation between law enforcement and civilians during the training. This is standard military training, not fundamentally civilian law enforcement-related in nature. Additionally, it is unlikely that unaffiliated civilians will be present. Alternatives. Reference (e) authorizes “Innovative Readiness Training”; however, subsection (i) of reference (e) precludes using that authority for “civilian law enforcement purposes.” There is very little guidance as to whether that might apply for a mere training program; however, the legally safer course of action is to avoid using this authority. Conclusion. References (a) through (d) authorize us to permit civilian law enforcement participation in our breacher training, but we must first receive a request from the civilian law enforcement participants explaining why alternatives are not feasible or practical. Additionally, the request for authorization for the training must be routed to ASN(M&RA).
- Edmond 7y agoThis mode of writing has its strength, unfortunately it also encourages a lazy and low detail mode of communication when applied to places it doesn't belong. I have had the experience of working in an environment with ex-military folks installed in leadership positions, the BLUF style of communication was standard issue. One problem this style of communication has when applied to a non-military work environment is that top-down communication ends up taking the form of commands, as opposed to actually conveying information that would enlighten the reader.
- joe_the_user 7y agoI think the problem is that "give the whole context" is a clear directive in the military context but fairly tricky to figure out in a civilian context.
- sandworm101 7y ago>> taking the form of commands, as opposed to actually conveying information that would enlighten the reader. That's a key observation. BLUF is most used when officers are talking to non-officers. The assumption is that the non-officers need to know what to do, but do not need to know why they need to do something. Between officers, BLUF is not nearly as common. The assumption is that officers shall have wider latitude, the ability to even disobey the specific instructions, and so need greater background information. Captain to corporals: All pickup trucks shall carry a fire extinguisher. [BLUF] Captain to Warrant Officers: Provide fire extinguishers in all the pickup trucks because local law requires it. [BLUF + context to encourage compliance] Captain to lieutenant: A new law was just past that looks to require fire extinguishers in all pickup trucks on public roads. Please make sure none of our trucks leave the base without one. [No BLUF. Explanation of situation and commander intent. Specifics of implementation left in hands of reader]
- ryacko 7y agoSo how does powerpoint impact communication density?
- thesuperbigfrog 7y ago
- lerxst00 7y agoA good video on writing that talks about similar ideas is https://youtu.be/vtIzMaLkCaM https://youtu.be/vtIzMaLkCaM This video is geared more towards academic writing, but, I've found it helpful even outside of that space.
- m0zg 7y agoYep. More than a decade ago, I formulated this rule: if it doesn't say what it wants in the first 3 sentences, I ain't reading it. I'd also suggest one more thing: do not send emails on which you expect a response on Friday evening. It'll be gone and forgotten by Monday. Send it on Monday morning instead. OTOH if you'd like to bury some mildly bad news, Friday evening is a perfect time to send it out, for the same reason.
- beloch 7y agoAcademic abstracts are very similar but evolved to serve a slightly different purpose. Papers take time to read and there are a lot of them coming out all the time, so researchers need to know if a paper has something they're interested in it before investing the time to read it. I've grown accustomed to this consideration from people who want my eyeballs to read their words. If you send me messages, etc. similar to what this article uses as "before BLUF" examples, it's very likely going to piss me off. There are a decent number of long-form articles posted on Hacker News that don't follow this standard and don't have a last paragraph (or two, or three...) that's any more helpful. They typically have an intriguing click-bait title that fails to fully parse and I wind up clicking on them just to figure out what they're about. I read three or four paragraphs in and it becomes clear the article is going to do a painfully slow reveal of it's point, if it even has one. So, I scroll alllll the way down to the bottom, noting that it will take a good twenty minutes to read that far, and find the last few paragraphs to be utterly unhelpful ramblings rather than a summary or conclusion. Giving up, I read the comments here and it is frequently the case that a lot of people are just commenting on the title without having figured out what heck the article is about either. I find this absolutely infuriating. I apologize for venting.
- motohagiography 7y agoI reverse the order of every email I write before sending it. As in, I write it then put the last thing I wrote first, because it necessarily has more thought put into it. Same with paragraphs. BLUF works when the power relationship between the speaker and listener/reader/writer was established prior to the communication.
- thesuperbigfrog 7y agoThe perfect three section military email: (typically from a subordinate to a superior) 1) BLUF statement of the subject at hand. 2) Details section that gives in-depth explanations and references to relevant military regulations as to why BLUF statement is correct / best course of action. 3) "The Way Ahead" section that gives recommended next steps or possible future issues to be aware of.
- vasili111 7y agoThat is how also news articles should be written.
- vasili111 7y agoAlso look at Inverted pyramid (journalism): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism)
- plutonorm 7y agoGreat for 'red' type personalities. But for a green/yellow like me this is horrific
- Animats 7y agoThe author is writing about advertising and bulk mail copy, not "communication". This is the classic advertising concept that ads should include a call to action.[1] Also, this came from Harvard Business Review in 2016.[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_to_action_(marketing) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_to_action_(marketing) [2] https://hbr.org/2016/11/how-to-write-email-with-military-precision https://hbr.org/2016/11/how-to-write-email-with-military-pre...
- stubish 7y agoThis style is critical for effective remote work. I might steal or link it for our internal documentation. So much time wasted 'handshaking' before an actual point is made before I can determine if I can spend time on the query or need to pass it on.
- hackerbabz 7y agoI appreciate a detail of this author's writing that is not pointed out. It lacks a concluding paragraph. I think this is a relic of gradeschool essay writing rules (i.e, Say what you are going to say, say it, say what you said). I almost alway stop reading an article once I sense I've reached the conclusion. That means I've learned what the author wants me to learn, and all I'm going to get next is a pithy sign off.
- jessaustin 7y agoI always try to give my essays horror-movie-style conclusions, which creepily undermine everything that went before.
- sowbug 7y agoLegal writing has a similar concept, though it's not as standardized as BLUF. It goes by various abbreviations: IRAC, CRAP, CRAC, CREAC. They all follow the same general format: state your conclusion (C) or the relevant issue (I), recite the rule (R) of law that applies to the facts, explain (E) how the facts apply (A) to the rule of law, and finally restate your conclusion (C) or predict (P) which way the ruling body will decide. Like BLUF, the legal writing format assumes the reader will read only the first part of a communication, and will continue only if he or she needs more detail.
- c3534l 7y agoSo like, some sort of introduction that summarizes the rest of that paper? Next you'll be telling me they recommend organizing paragraphs according to argument or point and to end it with some sort of conclusion!
- seidlitz 7y agoTactics like BLUF are the sad sign of times. We put too much emphasis on hacks, efficiency, and tactics instead of learning and practicing age old rules for good writing or whatever else we need to master.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Stenzel 7y agoSadly most sorce code follows the exact opposite convention - starting with legalese, followed by boring initialisation. I wish more source code would come to the point right at the start, and I am thankful for the new acronym BLUF that expresses this concept quite clearly.
- microcolonel 7y agoMaybe in languages without declaration hoisting, you could go with BLOB: Bottom Line On Back.
- Readywater 7y agov/r
- praptak 7y agoI like emails that start with "If you are not interested in X, you can stop reading now." Just like the early returns in programming.
- ece 7y ago1) be concise 2) give context Write better, and be widely read. Good article.
- tempodox 7y agoThere should be a startup that uses machine learning to convert arbitrary fluff from the internet to BLUF format as a service.
- blaesus 7y agoFormer journalist here. This structure is also known as "inverted pyramid"[0]. CIA has a book[1] that details the process to apply the structure recursively to build an article. Beware of the potential pitfalls of "stating the key first": 1. The key point might be complex and requires a build up – rushing to the point could confuse your readers; 2. What's "most important" depends on the reader and if you write for a wide audience, it is not always obvious; 3. If you design your writing to be "modular", readers could be more likely to abandon your work prematurely; 4. Sometimes the most important detail is that you are taking the time and being patient to communicate, and making a point with little context could alienate; 5. You could feel lazy and not control the complexity of your article because "I already made it easy for the readers to skim and skip!". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism) [1] https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.scip.org/resource/resmgr/White_Papers/Analytic-Thinking-CIA.pdf https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.scip.org/resource/resmgr/White_Pap...
- blablabla123 7y agoIt's funny that this has even a name and is so wide-spread. One can also apply this principle to talking and I used to work with people that were obsessed with this style. I totally agree with you that there are pitfalls and probably one could even add more to the list. Probably there is a good reason why people usually talk the way they do: build up a context, make the listener (or reader) familiar with what is going on and why we are talking about this. And then explain what we are actually talking about. This inverted pyramid talking style is so artificial and makes me question whether the advocates of it are just using it as an excuse to not read or listen to anything. It makes people indeed just hurry through communication.
- blaesus 7y agoWriting formulae are like design patterns. They give us names to think and talk about structures, but too often become dogmata.
- miguelmota 7y agoIt reminds me of the format for git commit messages; where the first line is short and sweet and to the point of what it is, and the content following it is supporting details and more verbose. It's interesting to see known patterns applied in different environments and named differently but the essence is the same.
- cwp 7y agoThere's a lot to be said for this style of writing, but I just hate the name. It should be Bottom Line Up TOP. Ok, that's pedantic, I know. But a standard for clear writing should not be named with a mixed metaphor, dammit!
- insulanus 7y agoI think this style is great when action is required. The "purpose at the top" principle could be useful even for scientists or artists, though. For example: Purpose of email: evaluate yesterday's experiment. Unfortunately, yesterday's experiment's results were bullshit, because I forgot to recharge the carbon dioxide canisters ... (etc).
- edmoffo 7y agoThis is gold. Forwarded to all friends.
- wery 7y agoBLUF is great until you realize that people just want you to write "BLUF: ipsem lorem" and that is all they read, and then then you get the same problem of having to explain your email body to someone over and over again. I can't stand BLUF for anything besides the most simple asinine events that happen.