|
|
Posted by Els on 01/24/06 21:14
Jose wrote:
>> So you just pick a random post from a thread and press reply?
>
> Well, in the rare cases when I do this, the post I pick to "reply" to
> may not be random, but it is (as far as my reply goes) equivalent to
> many others in the thread.
Still, just reply to the message that is most appropriate, and quote
the apropriate bits.
>> ..he/she will read "Re:" in the subject, and wonder what you are
>> replying to..
>
> ... and just after the "Re:" is the subject. It's a clue. Granted
> topic drift sometimes makes the subject line irrelevant, but anybody
> still reading probably knows this. New readers may have to go back a
> message or two...
Exactly. That's what we're trying to avoid by educating people to
quote relevant bits of messages.
> if the message is that far off the subject, a single
> quote isn't going to help much.
If you want to reply to whatever they were discussing 5 messages ago,
go back to that message and then press reply, so that your reply still
makes sense.
> The alternative (which I see far too
> often on Usenet) is that huge amounts of thread get copied for each
> reply, which then gets copied into subsequent replies...
That's not good either. But I still prefer that to have no quote at
all.
> and far more
> time is wasted paging through all that redundancy to find the new stuff
> than would be wasted on the occasional having to refer back to a post
> that probably still exists on the server, or will arrive soon.
But at least someone who reads the post as a separate post, will be
able to read what it's about. And I don't agree about more time being
wasted 'paging through all that redundancy' than on 'occasionally
having to refer back to another post'. Scrolling within a post is
*much* easier than finding another message. Even if it is still
visible in the thread. You see, for the writer it may be obvious which
message he is replying to, but the reader has no idea. Is it about the
previous post? And if so, about which part of it? Or is it about 2
posts ago? Or about the last post in the second last sub-thread? Or,
and this happens too, is it about a completely different thread and
placed in this thread by mistake?
>> I don't feel that's good enough an excuse really.
>
> Excuse? It's not like anybody's trying to "get away with something".
You're not trying to get away with occasionally replying within a
thread without quoting *anything*?
>> If it's a reply to the gestalt (I don't like that
>> word btw) of an entire conversation, write whatever you feel is the
>> gestalt (others might have different ideas) between square brackets
>> above your reply, like so:
>>
>> [sharks]
>> They bite.
>
> Good idea. Sometimes I do do that. However, rather than:
>
> * > [sharks]
> * They bite.
>
> I might write
>
> * Sharks bite.
Why invent your own standards?
"* Sharks bite." only tells me that you reckon sharks bite. It doesn't
indicate that sharks were already the subject of the conversation.
Really, stick to the conventions and stop confusing people.
>> Example: the post you made to which Mark replied that you aren't
>> quoting still.
>
> Actually, I didn't write that post.
Ah yes, I see. My bad. You did defend that person though :P
> And in this thread I did quote and
> respond "appropriately". So much for internet style.
Well done ;-)
> My point was =not= that quoting and replying to the quote should be
> deprecated, but rather, that =sometimes= it is not necessary.
And my point still is that I think it always is. If one wants to make
statements that shouldn't be considered replies to any particular
message, one should start a new thread. Or a blog.
> I did not express an opinion as to which category any particular post
> falls in.
Nevertheless, I think we covered most possible categories now - imo,
no post ever should be without quotes unless it's really the first
message in a thread.
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: Dr. Feelgood - You Upset Me Baby (live)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|