Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster From: oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster) Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers Subject: Re: Quoting in SF-Lovers Message-ID: <1602@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 29-Oct-85 16:18:26 EST Article-I.D.: uwmacc.1602 Posted: Tue Oct 29 16:18:26 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 1-Nov-85 01:23:05 EST References: <178@caip.RUTGERS.EDU> <499@rti-sel.UUCP> <1184@teklds.UUCP> Reply-To: oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster) Organization: UWisconsin-Madison Academic Comp Center Lines: 28 >In article <499@rti-sel.UUCP> wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) writes: >>Lighten up. There are people who abuse the quoting of articles they >>are replying to, but in many cases you NEED the context to understand >>what the hell is going on. Agreed. >> I personally am annoyed at the periodic flames >>condemning ALL quoting of articles in a reply. It's not an absolute >>thing, folks; there's a time and a place for a quote. Let's try to >>recognize each other's human weaknesses and extend the same courtesy >>to each other in our net postings that we do in our face-to-face >>interactions with other people. >> OK. The need for (partial) quotations is obvious to me. However, the need to know that the name of a book that one person is reminiscing about is "Half Magic" about 12 times per day isn't obvious. Nor is the need for 35 public corrections about a smiley-faced mention of "feminist" authors. I seem to remember from my latest netiquette re-reading (I make a point of reading net.announce.newuser every 3-4 months) that such should be done by E-mail, and not by posting, if only because you *know* that somebody somewhere *will* post the answer. So please, PLEASE try to stop yourself from showing the world that you're one of 63 people who know that book title or Star Trek episode name. And I'll try to remember that netiquette also suggests not having meta-discussions. - joel