Cliff wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 06:59:33 -0400, JohnM wrote:


Cliff wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 15:14:16 -0500, Scott Willing
wrote:



The argument is that posts get separated from their threads for a
multitude of reasons


Only quote the specific bits that you are responding directly to.
You need the context but not the rest.

I seem to remember you snipping my posts in order to alter the context..

John


John,
I don't think so (but it's possible). Sometimes, with a few
others, I only reply to a slight snippet (see jb & Gunner & crew)
with a sharp poke G.

You go back and look at the thread where we disagreed over the atomic
bombing of the Japanese cities and you'll see where I accused you of
cutting what I said, resulting in an altered context.


For most the subject (or a specific subset of it), not the
author, is the subject (whoops .. a tautology?)

Usually I quote the specific bit I'm responding to (for the
proper context). I like SHORT, easy-on-the-reader posts,
little forced scrolling to find the context, and brevity, usually.

Some of the others like huge essays .... but I find that a
few well placed words usually do most of the time.

I find your few, well placed words to often sound like you haven't
thought of anything constructive. "Winger!, WMD's!", etc. Maybe the
readers you prefer need it kept simple?

One may also usually assume that the reader recently read the
prior full post that the reply is in response to.

I don't believe that to be a safe assumption. You go through a thread on
a day and you see the posts between then and the last time you looked.
There may be responses to something you read three days ago, twenty
lines up the thread. There's usually a middle ground between giving
enough information about what you're responding to that you're showing
consideration for your readers and cutting enough to not waste people's
time. Myself, I prefer to err on the side of too much information.

John