Since my program doesn t put anything in, let me say that here below follows what I am quoting: But what Wendell and I are both seeing is this:Jun 6, 2004 1 of 4View SourceSince my program doesn't put anything in, let me say that here below
follows what I am quoting:
But what Wendell and I are both seeing is this:
<< The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. >>
This isn't a typical quoting format, and therefore is rather confusing,
especially if what is being quoted is a paragraph or so. :(
Now here is my explanation:
I add those >>s manually so that people can see what I am quoting.
I am not real fond of the automatic every-line things, because while they
are nice at first, after a generation or so they get very annoying.
Aren't we getting a bit anal here though?
Elizabeth Apgar Triano
amor vincit omnia
In a message dated 6/6/2004 8:09:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ... The problem for me was that it wasn t a matter being bothered by the irregularity of theJun 6, 2004 1 of 4View SourceIn a message dated 6/6/2004 8:09:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> Aren't we getting a bit anal here though?The problem for me was that it wasn't a matter being bothered by the
irregularity of the format. The problem was that I couldn't understand the post at
all. I think it would help if people didn't quote as much of the post that
they're replying to. It would be even more helpful if people didn't quote parts
of posts that contain quotes themselves. It would also be helpful if people
always made sure that the author of quotes was identified.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
From: Elizabeth Apgar Triano ... No, Lizzie. I agree with Wendell and Deirdre. Sometimes my quotes don t automaticallyJun 13, 2004 1 of 4View SourceFrom: "Elizabeth Apgar Triano" <lizziewriter@...>
>No, Lizzie. I agree with Wendell and Deirdre. Sometimes my quotes don't
> I add those >>s manually so that people can see what I am quoting.
> I am not real fond of the automatic every-line things, because while they
> are nice at first, after a generation or so they get very annoying.
> Aren't we getting a bit anal here though?
automatically generate the sideways carets so I have to put them in
manually. Or I don't like the line breaks. It's not that much harder to go
back and type
>This is much easieron.................................................
>to read for most
>of us who are used to
>than to read this and have it go on and
and to try to keep track of it that way.
Also, the ">" business is layered. If you keep in your attributions, as is
proper netiquette, you get
>all their text begins with a single mark. If they have quoted someone andyou keep that in, you get
>secondperson@whereverthird level of quotes -- there will be 3 marks.
>>and all their remarks are preceded by a double mark. Ditto if there is a
This is pretty standard. Doing variant quoting is like variant spelling --
it slows down the reader and has the tendancy to confuse.
To be quite frank, I often skip what you and Diane write because it's too
much effort to figure out what is quotation and what is original. And I
also consider it quite rude to delete the the source of the quotation unless
there is a very good reason (such as you asked the person if you could quote
them and they said you could only if you didn't say who it was from).