Article quoting (was Re: Whats a reasonable collection?)

From: R. D. Davis <>
Date: Fri Jun 29 19:34:45 2001

On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Ethan Dicks wrote the following words of wisdom:
> And _my_ preference is to keep things in chronological order and with the
> new comments interspersed for context. Oh, yeah, and with the irrelevant
> stuff *not* quoted.

Agreed. I remember when there was a time when careless, clueless,
bandwidth and time wasters on Usenet were flamed to a crisp for not
doing this. The lines of text that were irrelevant were replaced with
a single "[...]". Also, severe flamage would also result when those
blasted careless, clueless, people would fail to properly quote the
names of those whose words they were replying to.

What do you think, do we need to go back to using severe flamage in
order to correct this problem? The flames weren't attempts at being
nasty; they were merely a very fast method of education. :-)

> Unfortunately, this is the style of yester-year, of 1200-baud UUCP feeds

However. it still works well, and produces messages that make sense.

> and old Usenet. None of this is easy to do with MicroSloth products.

Nothing useful is easy to do with Micro$loth products.

Copyright (C) 2001 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals: 
All Rights Reserved            an unnatural belief that we're above Nature & 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such       beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
Received on Fri Jun 29 2001 - 19:34:45 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:34:01 BST