Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [mythsoc] Posting format (WAS: Re: Re: Green men)

Expand Messages
  • WendellWag@aol.com
    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 the
    Message 1 of 4 , Jun 6, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 6/6/2004 8:09:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
      lizziewriter@... writes:

      > 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.

      Wendell Wagner


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Berni Phillips
      From: Elizabeth Apgar Triano ... No, Lizzie. I agree with Wendell and Deirdre. Sometimes my quotes don t automatically
      Message 2 of 4 , Jun 13, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        From: "Elizabeth Apgar Triano" <lizziewriter@...>
        >
        >
        > 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?

        No, Lizzie. I agree with Wendell and Deirdre. Sometimes my quotes don't
        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 easier
        >to read for most
        >of us who are used to
        >this convention

        >than to read this and have it go on and
        on.................................................
        ............................nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
        nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn>

        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

        firstperson@wherever
        >all their text begins with a single mark. If they have quoted someone and
        you keep that in, you get

        >secondperson@wherever
        >>and all their remarks are preceded by a double mark. Ditto if there is a
        third level of quotes -- there will be 3 marks.

        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).

        Berni
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.