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