Re: Posts showing up.

On Feb 26, 8:09 pm, "Sean Carroll" <seanc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Jeff" <yourimageunre...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote

"Sean Carroll" <seanc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Why should people have to wade through pages of messily formatted
quotations
nested seven levels deep, repeating an entire discussion, just to get to
a
few new sentences, when only a small part of all that crap is actually
necessary and relevant to include?
I already gave my response to O'leary. I'm not going to edit posts
from others..when I usually write only a couple of sentences.

Again, the whole point is that the fact you are only adding a couple of
sentences makes editing that much more important.

Why should I responsible for editing others posts?

Because you're the one quoting them, and making the post that includes those
quotes.

I don't have the time.

How much time do you need to drag your cursor across a block of unnecessary
text and hit the delete key?

I thought we were friends. I
guess I was wrong. I don't bash you for how long your posts are, and
what should be edited, cause
I'm not interested in what you do..on this subject..nor have I paid
any attention to long your posts are or aren't.

You appear to be confusing constructive criticism and advice on netiquette
with 'bashing'. Nothing I have said to you, in this thread or any other, has
ever been mean, angry, or insulting. All I have done is calmly tried to
explain some things to you in an attempt to help you understand better.

Why should I go the trouble of editing
posts..that posters didn't edit, before they decided to respond to me?
Because you are more considerate and respectful of your readers than they
are.
Now, you are giving me a compliment. I'm confused Sean..

That's because this 'bashing' you think I have done to you is entirely
nonexistent. Go back and reread the posts I have written to you. I do not
believe you will find a single thing in any of them that was not said in a
calm, respectful, friendly manner.

but all I have to say is that I have always respected you..and have told
you so, and
I never want any hard feelings between you and I.

There are certainly none on my part.

Just because you are responding to someone else's post doesn't mean you
need
to include a bunch of irrelevant and distracting stuff in it.
I refuse to edit out a bunch of crap by other posters..that were long
posts. It's not my responsibility..when I did not write these long
posts.

It is very much your responsibility. Someone else may have written it, but
you're the one quoting it and repeating it. It is entirely on YOU to not
quote or repeat stuff that you are not commenting on, and that is not
necessary for your post to be understood.

Besides, whether it's your 'responsibility' or not, why wouldn't you WANT to
take a mere few seconds to click with your mouse, hit a key or two, and make
it easier for people to read your post? Don't you WANT people to read your
posts? Don't you WANT them to *enjoy* reading your posts? Don't you WANT
them to find your posts worth the effort it takes to read through them?

Quote the
parts of it that are necessary to get your point across. You can include
some context, yeah, but if you only need ten lines of quotes for your
readers to follow the discussion, there is no reason to include five
pages
of them.
It's not myself that is doing this.

Well, in point of fact, I'm not even entirely sure that O'Leary was
referring to you when he brought the subject up. I am talking to you about
it because you are the one who posted a reply on the subject.

Because O'learly has brought up this discussion with me before.


I can't really even say I have paid close enough attention to know off the
top of my head whether you are especially bad at this stuff. For all I know,
your posts are generally fine. I am merely explaining and defending the idea
of editing to you because you challenged it. If you hadn't plainly asserted
your refusal to edit, I wouldn't have said a word to you on the topic. But
you did assert such refusal, and I find said assertion to demonstrate a
certain level of selfishness, laziness, and lack of consideration for
others, and -- as a *friend* -- I felt I could not allow you to express such
vices without trying to point them out to you, and explain the reasoning
behind the concept you were dismissing.

I understand..but don't blame me for others long posts.

No one has done so. The point at issue is not others' posts at all. It is
what YOU choose to quote and repeat in YOUR posts.

I Don't repeat my posts.


I'm only spending time with the posters that like me..cause my life is
getting shorter by the minute. If you want to spend time with this
nonsense, that's fine..but I want no part of it.

You are expressing another unfortunate vice here: closed-mindedness. I am
merely trying to explain to you why editing is a good idea. You're entirely
free to disagree with my reasoning if you want to. But at least give me the
consideration of LISTENING to that reasoning before you dismiss it as
'nonsense'.

I've listened to you, Sean.

Again, as a *friend*, I am only trying to give you good advice. That's all I
was doing in that post about the offensive nature of your question on the
topic of homosexuality in that other thread, as well, in case you thought I
was 'bashing' you there, too. That's why I went out of my way to say, 'You
may not have consciously meant it to be offensive, BUT ...'

Some other posters may be attacking you. I am only trying to have a
discussion with you.

It doesn't matter anymore, Sean. Really, it doesn't. I give up.


--
--Seanhttp://spclsd223.livejournal.com

Cate: Makes us equally wrong.

House: No, it makes us *both* wrong. Not equally. You were at least six
wronger.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What the hell, Jerome Drexler?
    ... You only need to repeat "silence silence" to convince ... Are moderators rejecting your posts also behind your ... You have an incurable need to repeat "obsessive posts", ... [pathetic little stalkers like you are boring boring boring .. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What the hell, Jerome Drexler?
    ... Have you yet noticed the deafening silence regarding your ... Are moderators rejecting your posts also behind your ... "You start with insulting other people rather early. ... You have an incurable need to repeat "obsessive posts", ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What the hell, Jerome Drexler?
    ... You only need to repeat "silence silence" to convince ... Are moderators rejecting your posts also behind your ... You have an incurable need to repeat "obsessive posts", ... [pathetic little stalkers like you are boring boring boring .. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What the hell, Jerome Drexler?
    ... You only need to repeat "silence silence" to convince ... Are moderators rejecting your posts also behind your ... You have an incurable need to repeat "obsessive posts", ... [pathetic little stalkers like you are boring boring boring .. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Dayton Millers Data have no Real Signal
    ... repeat the experiment with that type of setup. ... > reactions to my posts, and to posts made by others ... "Error bars" provided a face on Mars. ... > PS. Get rid of the insulting tone -- accusing ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)