[HPFGU-Feedback] Mail Formats (was Re: An Elfly Reminder)

[Jordan Abel]

Think of it this way - If you were responding to a letter, or even an
actual written item posted on a physical bulletin board or whatever,
would you write out the whole original text, or even whole paragraphs
in an indented block? No, you'd _refer_ to the points you were
addressing, maybe quote a part of a sentence or two if you're talking
about the wording in particular. Quoting itself is a shortcut.

bboyminn:
> While the rules here
> are strict, they also have some flexibility for the dynamics of
> discussion and a reasonable context driven need.

Random832:
Do the rules even say you have to quote long runs of verbatim text in
responses, or do they just say what to do / what not to do _if_ you do
that

bboyminn:
> While it would be considered non-standard and not acceptable for
> general use, a post where you paraphrase rather than quote a previous
> poster might be valid within a certain context.

Random832:
What I'm suggesting is basically: Treat every post as if it's a "new"
post that's talking _about_ the points made in the previous post,
rather than creating endless cascades of quoted, indented (or not)
text.

bboyminn:
> Also, within a fair and reasonable context, you might be able to quote
> a previous poster /in-line/. But again that would be considered
> non-standard and wouldn't be acceptable for general use.

Random832:
If "non-standard" forms of quoting (there _are_ real standards, and
they describe the usual usenet style) were unacceptable for general
use, this entire community would be shut down for its quoting
conventions. But clearly that's not the case.

bboyminn:
> Further, you
> would still be require to atribute the quote to the person making that
> statement.

Random832:
Well, yeah. I never said I wouldn't.

In closing...

Look at this message (the part before this paragraph, since i can't
keep track of the numbers as they change as I type it). 8 attribution
lines, 12 quoted lines, 9 blank lines, 19 original lines. That's 12
full lines people have already read (and can get back to in their
inbox or the archive, particularly if I include an archive number). 8
content-free lines. That's more than half the message that someone who
just wants to read the new stuff has to scroll past. I could probably
have made the same points with only a few more original lines (to
refer to what point you made that I'm responding to), in only a few
paragraphs (not nearly as many blank lines) and no attribution _lines_
(i.e. the name set apart on it's own - I would mention you were the
one I was responding to and attribute any of your words I quoted
inline of course) necessary. To anyone who's worried someone might get
your point _wrong_ and paraphrase, I ask this. Is it worse for someone
to get it wrong and actually _say_ what their interpretation is so you
can correct them immediately, or for them to go off half-cocked with
incorrect assumptions and end up talking at cross-purposes trying to
sort out who's misunderstanding whom?

You accused me (I cut out the quote referring to it because I didn't
originally attempt to address it) that I "seem to be looking for a way
around the rules"? No. I'm looking for a better way to do things - I
don't care about the nitpicky details of _how_ quoting works - I think
quoting itself _doesn't_ work very well and creates difficulty for
everyone. And no-one's yet come up with a credible argument against my
proposal. The only thing even resembling one is the idea that someone
might paraphrase you wrong - and, honestly - if someone's going to
misinterpret what you're going to say, they'll do it with or without
quoting, and wouldn't it be better to have it out in the open so you
can quickly correct them?

The fact that my suggestion is not the way things are done now is no
reason not to _change_ how things are done - with that attitude, you'd
all never have _started_ changing things where the old usenet quoting
standard was inadequate

-- 
Random832