Re: I've seen things you people wouldn't believe...

On 28 Apr 2008 22:16:24 -0400, "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

trinlay <trin1066@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

(Because post lengths get unwieldy very quickly, it's saving band
with to only quote the comment hook. This used to be standard
practice on Usenet back some time ago, has this practice changed
with the presumption that everyone is on broadband?)

It's still standard practice. It has nothing to do with how many
people have broadband. Posts are meant for people to read and
understand.

My contention is that the severity of her edits (and those of Mr.
Weber) interfere with understanding.

Extraneous quoted text makes posts harder and less
pleasant to read, and makes the discussion harder to follow.

Well, that depends on what you think is extraneous, now doesn't it?

I think trinlay and mike cut WAY more than simply extraneous text.

And not just harder for the readers -- I've long since noticed that
people who quote *all* of the message they're replying to are far
more likely to completely misunderstand that message.

I find that having that text allows me to flow the discussion as if it
were a policy debate.

mike complains that I turned a discussion specific to surgeries for
non-life threatening conditions into a discussion of all surgeries. I
would argue that part of that is BECAUSE *that context* got snipped
away - probably by him.

Broadband is irrelevant for text. I log in at 9600 bps. At that
speed, it takes about three seconds for a message this size to appear.
That's much faster than anyone's reading speed. If I had broadband I
could perhaps download a whole novel in those three seconds -- but I
would still have to read it unless I skipped over it and ignored it
instead. With quoted text, how is any reader supposed to know which
of the quoted text to skip reading, unless the sender is careful to
quote only text that should not be skipped?

Try reading the new text and, when needed, refer to the quoted
material when you think it is necessary or when you think doing so
would add depth or context to the discussion.
--
"Neon lights, A Nobel Prize
The mirror speaks, the reflection lies
You don't have to follow me
Only you can set me free"
Living Colour
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ive seen things you people wouldnt believe...
    ... with to only quote the comment hook. ... practice on Usenet back some time ago, ... with the presumption that everyone is on broadband?) ... It's still standard practice. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: C Test Incorrectly Uses printf() - Please Confirm
    ... In practice, the fact that the presented code is ugly and should ... never pass a code review, whether its behavior is defined or not, ... However I referred to thumbing through the standard, ... Not to reading the standard generally. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Brian Kernighan, maybe Im not worthy, maybe Im scum
    ... unimplemented or little-implemented standard. ... the person correcting him for bring it to his attention, ... Because C as a language is defined IN PRACTICE, ... as authority goes, authority on unmoderated newsgroups is a fanciful ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Eulers constant
    ... series of mathematical functions to be added to the standard library ... <end quote> ... called "Common extensions" where the standard EXPLICITELY mentions: ... Additional floating types may have more range or precision than long double, may be used for evaluating expressions of other floating types, and may be used to define float_t or double_t. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: COBOL standard text (writing usage manuals for OpenCOBOL)
    ... When it comes to text from the '02 Standard, things get a little more difficult, ... after all you are promoting COBOL, albeit somewhat late in the day/century. ... The correct place to get such permission is from either ... I would suggest that you quote the text from ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)