Re: digest

[Beverly Parks <bparks -at- HUACHUCA-EMH1 -dot- ARMY -dot- MIL>]

Louise Mayberry, a digest subscriber, communicated her concerns
about people quoting entire messages in their replies.

Kevin Harper, a message-at-a-time subscriber, countered that he
needs the context of the original message and that it is easier
and faster just to include the original message when replying.
He also said
> * It's just standard netiquette to quote the author. It helps prevent
>   twisting of words.

=========
<sigh>
Of course you both are correct. As Louise asks, we should not
quote the *entire* message--THAT is *poor* netiquette.

As Kevin said, we *should* quote the author so that the
original intent of the message does not get twisted. This is
*good* netiquette.

The fine line is in quoting only those portions of the original
message that are necessary to put your reply in context for
other readers.

The option of summarizing is a good one--and preferred by many
people--though it does pose the risk of the person summarizing
not understanding what the origintor intended.

The biggest problem I have found with stringing together
(including) everyone's reply as a thread progresses is that
somewhere along the line, someone is going to attribute your
name to a portion of the thread that you did not write. I've had
this happen to me several times in the usenet newsgroups.

At least with the summary approach, the origintor's name is
usually an integral part of the idea, instead of being a
separate line above the quoted material where it could easily
get separated by deletion or insertion of other material.

And that's all I have to say about it. For now.

   =*=   Beverly Parks -- bparks -at- huachuca-emh1 -dot- army -dot- mil   =*=
   =*=     Huachuca : That's pronounced "wah-CHEW-ka"     =*=
   =*= "Unless otherwise stated, all comments are my own. =*=
   =*=   I am not representing my employer in any way."   =*=