This is an observation and a question, but not a flame. It is not directed at anyone in particular.

Here goes:

I find it difficult to read through posts that quote other posts and have responses intercut into the quote sections or between separate ones. I usually just ignore those and go on to the next one. This style is reminiscent of the "Debating Forum" where this is done quite a lot. Quoting the paragraph and then responding in one section seems to flow better and is easier on the eyes when different colors are used. This seems to happen more on serious, hotly contested topics and not on the fun ones, of course.

Am I the only one with these problem? Your thoughts are appreciated!

Mark

I agree 100% Mark. I also skip over these posts, I find them difficult to follow. Also taking each line seperately can result in words being quoted out of context.

Thanx for the reply Donut. After I posted this thread, I started to wonder if I might be the only one with this problem and seem like I was bashing members!

Mark

Nope - I agree as well. By using this form of "forensic" deconstruction of someones post, you run the risk of missing an overall understanding of the poster's comments and points.

IMHO, it's a far better tactic to look at the totality of someone's arguements. The whole may well be more than the sum of it's parts.

Well, I know what you mean but I still think that kind of thing has its place. If quoting a large post with several points then I either have to resort to taking notes with pen and paper or quoting in pieces as you describe. Basically I think its ok if you are quoting something with a number of clearly seperate points in it. You can't really misconstrue someones argument that way.

I agree - as far as "look at the whole" goes. But when replying to a post which addresses several issues & and you want to comment on them, then I think that the forensic approach is a better one. As long as it isn't used to fish for single words/sentences out of the context.

Neuro

<font color="plum">I agree with <font color="palegreen">Sprout</font> and <font color="gray">Neuromancer</font>. If I reply to a long post, I prefer to separate the paragraphs and insert my Replies at the appropriate spot. Peronally, I find it easier to read that type of post.

Also, there are times when I only reply to one part of an overall Post. In that case, I see no reason to quote a long post just to answer one specific point within it.

However, I do make an effort to keep the overall text and "tone" of the post in mind when Replying.</font>

100% agreement here as well Mark. Personally I think it is disrespectful to the totality of what someone has written to have someone quote it then cut it up and interject their own statements. The alternate colour thing is a put off as well. Magik will assume I am back on his case again, but I think that would be harsh. It's true that it has never irked me enough to start a post saying that I object to it, but I will certainly agree with a post that does object. At times I have considered the tactic of requoting and changing coulour, and really confusing the hell out of the posts - but I decided that would have just been childish of me :D .

Well, I agree with both sides... (diplomatic aren't I? [img]tongue.gif[/img] )

On Pandemonium, it got out of hand for a few times and it's a very good way to belittle someone's opinion by cutting it up into tiny little snippets and retorting each of these with an oh so clever oneliner. I really don't like it when people always argue like that.

Barry does have a point though, when someone is making several distinctive arguments, then quoting them one by one and adding your reply after each of them is often the clearest and easiest way to give a really in-depth answer that covers the entire post of the person you're responding to.

So when it's taken to extremes, I absolutely agree with Skywalker and Donut. Not only is it petty and indicative of bad argumentative skills, it's also pretty horrid on the eyes. The point is that it's almost always done NOT to cover all arguments with a reply, but simply to try and gain the lead by makig sarcastic little remarks on fragments of argument totally pulled out of context.
I'm talking about posts that are really cut into tiny pieces now, though. With those, I DO think you can pull the argument out of joint and out of context by cutting it up.
Cutting out one or two large chucks that each hold a point, which is what Barry refers to I think, I have no problems with at all. I would say it is actually necessary with some posts.
So in the end it depends on the intentions of the person doing the cutting - it can be both to clarify or to belittle.

Whew, that turned out longer than I thought it would be ... (maybe someone could cut it up in tiny, easy-to-digest nuggets? ;) )

[ 11-28-2002, 07:43 AM: Message edited by: Melusine ]

Hello everybody!

I almost didn't figure out, why it should be disrespectful using quotes. Melusines Post helped to understand it and I agree. Quoting could be used to be veeerryyyy smart!! (and sometimes is used - but not at IW ;) )
Normally I use quotes to make clear to what I'm referring to. On the board there seems to be no use for quoting, because most posts are pretty short but there's another problem. When I'd like to refer to a special argument of a special post that has been made within a thread - it could be confusing, as there may be a lot of people posting.

One thing I think is really annoying: quotes within quotes within quotes within quotes.... With an one-liner at the bottom

[ 11-28-2002, 08:02 AM: Message edited by: Borvik ]