Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Doctor Doom <JCH8169@*****.TAMU.EDU>
Subject:	ADMIN: Quoting Previous Messages
Date:	Mon, 4 Apr 1994 13:04:16 -0500

Message no. 1 Meine Kamaraden:

There are a number of tendencies of list members, pertaining to
procedures followed in replying/responding to a message, that have been the
source of some degree of consternation for me. Since my recent elevation to
status to that of Dread Executor, I feel compelled to enumerate upon these
behaviors, in I have received word that they are a source of irritation to
others:

When one seeks to juxtapose one's own views with an earlier message, i.e.
reply to an anterior posting, one should:

1. When quoting former correspondence, denoting said material is facilitated
significantly by initial line characters ( ">" and "]" being
typical)
rather than simply appending one's own statements at the end.

2. Quote, that is reproduce, only those lines pertinent to your reply or
commentary, that is to say, it is /not/ necessary to replicate the entire
message.

3. Quote the earlier posting /previous/ to insertion of one's own script,
RATHER than including the preceding post at the /end/ of your message.
Hence, observers may see what instigated one's reaction, and following
that, specifically what one's reaction /was/.

4. Indicate the prior posting's authorship by identifying said message's
originator at the beginning of the earlier material, and /not/ by the
inclusion of the (typically) multiple-line signature file.

I only mention this in interests of the greater good and due to the
fact that others have made similar complaints. It is poor Net etiquette for
those who choose to plow through the volume of mail this list produces and
to have to contend with such obviously unnecessary verbiage -- especially
those members who must actually PAY for electronic mail service.

________________ _______ _______ ____ ____
\ _____ \ / \ / \ / \/ \ >>> Attack,
\ | | | |---___ | ___---| | || || | attack, and
| | | | |_____/ | \_____| | || || | if in doubt
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | | | | | | || || | ATTACK! <<<
"Iron hand in a | |___/ / \_______/ \_______/|____| |____| -=-=-=-=-=-
velvet glove." | / ||
-- Charles V |_______/ Dread Executor of Administrative Tasks for Hayden

^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^

From:	Jason Larke <jlarke@***.ITD.UMICH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: ADMIN: Quoting Previous Messages
Date:	Mon, 4 Apr 1994 16:29:13 -0400

Message no. 2 >>>>> On Mon, 04 Apr 1994 13:04:16 CDT, Doctor Doom
>>>>> <JCH8169@*****.TAMU.EDU> said:

DD> 3. Quote the earlier posting /previous/ to insertion of
DD> one's own script, RATHER than including the preceding
DD> post at the /end/ of your message. Hence, observers may
DD> see what instigated one's reaction, and following that,
DD> specifically what one's reaction /was/.

Hmmm.... in many circles it is considered good form to
append the quoted material, so that those who do not need
assistance in following the discussion need not wade through
it. If one is replying to a post as a whole, instead of
poking at any particular part, surely this procedure saves
inconvenience for the reader.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Jason Larke- jlarke@*****.edu- Computer geek, philosophy major, bassist|
| "Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the gun." - Ash, from Army of Darkness |
| I don't speak for anyone except myself, so drop it. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

From:	Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: ADMIN: Quoting Previous Messages
Date:	Mon, 4 Apr 1994 16:38:30 -0400

Message no. 3 >>>>> "Doctor" == Doctor Doom <JCH8169@*****.TAMU.EDU>
writes:

Just a minor note first, the term ``citation'' is mostly synonymous with
``quote.'' The technical difference is in the quantity of text being quoted
or cited (quotations are usually short, a couple of sentences; citations
are much longer).

Doctor> 1. When quoting former correspondence, denoting said material is
Doctor> facilitated significantly by initial line characters ( ">" and
"]"
Doctor> being typical) rather than simply appending one's own statements at
Doctor> the end.

There are many ways of doing so. If you are using GNU Emacs, for example,
you can use the SuperCite package to get nice, neat citations that are
relevant and obvious as to who wrote what. I'm positive that Elm and Pine
can do similar things.

Using odd character combinations may look nice to you, but is usually quite
confusing. Stick to the standard ``> '' symbol, or a name, initials, or
other short identifying tag followed by ``> ''.

Doctor> 2. Quote, that is reproduce, only those lines pertinent to your
Doctor> reply or commentary, that is to say, it is /not/ necessary to
Doctor> replicate the entire message.

Correct. Note that I removed Dr. Doom's opening statement as they weren't
relevant to my own comments, and you've already seen it, anyway. The most
annoying thing in a highly-discussed thread is seeing the same text over
and over when it has /nothing/ to do with the topic at hand.

Doctor> 4. Indicate the prior posting's authorship by identifying said
Doctor> message's originator at the beginning of the earlier material, and
Doctor> /not/ by the inclusion of the (typically) multiple-line signature
Doctor> file.

Again, most decent MUAs (Mail User Agents) have some way of doing so;
SuperCite has quite a few, from the terse format I use to 6-line
monstrosities that identify everything you could ever want to know about
the original message.

|||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ||||
| Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> WWW Page: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox |
| One likes to believe in the freedom of baseball. --Geddy Lee |
|||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ||||

From:	"Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@*******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject:	Re: ADMIN: Quoting Previous Messages
Date:	Mon, 4 Apr 1994 16:07:52 -0500

Message no. 4 NOTE:

Depending on the circumstances, it is also "correct" to write your
response and then quote the relevant materials AFTER, but very few people
do this and intermingle their responses in the original text.

PINE, as a default, has quote material at the end (but this is easily
changed), I don't know about other mail readers.

In the end, either are correct, just make sure that others understand
what you are talking about.

(I personally prefer inter-mingling.)

____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@*******.mankato.msus.edu
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> Political Correctness is
\/ Finger for PGP 2.3a Public Key <=> P.C. for "Thought Police"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 1.0.1) GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)

From:	"I.M. Legion" <legion@***.SC.COLOSTATE.EDU>
Subject:	Re: ADMIN: Quoting Previous Messages
Date:	Mon, 4 Apr 1994 16:15:18 -0600

Message no. 5 Robert A. Hayden <hayden@*******.mankato.msus.edu> writes:
> Depending on the circumstances, it is also "correct" to write your
> response and then quote the relevant materials AFTER, but very few people
> do this and intermingle their responses in the original text.

I prefer the quote-as-you-go method. It usually makes what you are referring
to much clearer. And as incoherent as all of us usually are, every little
bit helps.

> PINE, as a default, has quote material at the end (but this is easily
> changed), I don't know about other mail readers.

ELM just throws the whole message into the editor and lets the user sort
the mess out. I almost never quote an entire message, either. I only quote
the relevant parts.

> (I personally prefer inter-mingling.)

Hey! Rob and I agree on something! Cool! :-)

--
Legion
Students for War & Oppression
@@@@ @ @ @@@@ Counter productive, highly destructive!
@ @ @@ @ @ @ ---
@@@@ @ @@ @ @ @ Celebrating the occurrences of War &
@ @ @@ @ @ @ Oppression since the dawn of time
@@@@ @@@@ @@@@ -- Even the planets were born in turmoil... --

From:	Jai Tao <jdfalk@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: ADMIN: Quoting Previous Messages
Date:	Tue, 5 Apr 1994 00:06:35 -0400

Message no. 6 Earlier today, Dr. Doom eloquently reminded everybody of basic
'net etiquette in regards to quoting & replies. (I didn't quote his
message because _everybody_ reads ADMIN posts, so you'll know what I'm
referring to.)
Thank you, oh DEATH. If we're lucky, assorted listmembers will
listen to you, and my own level of annoyance will be reduced as well. In
fact, I may read more messages, instead of just deleting the ones which
are extremely mis-formatted.

Jai Tao
jdfalk@****.com

From:	Jai Tao <jdfalk@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: ADMIN: Quoting Previous Messages
Date:	Tue, 5 Apr 1994 00:14:06 -0400

Message no. 7 In regards to the Stainless Steel Rat's thoughts on various
mailers, I know from experience that while PINE automagically adds a line
such as "On 4 Apr 1994 Jai Tao write:" before a quote, the version of ELM
which I have access to here does not even have that as an option --
thus, it must be done by hand.

From:	Doctor Doom <JCH8169@*****.TAMU.EDU>
Subject:	ADMIN: Quoting Previous Messages
Date:	Sun, 8 May 1994 18:20:54 -0500

Message no. 8 Meine Kamaraden:

There are a number of tendencies of list members, pertaining to
procedures followed in replying/responding to a message, that have been the
source of no small degree of consternation for me. Since my recent elevation
to status to that of Dread Executor, I feel compelled to enumerate upon these
behaviors, in that I have received word that they are a source of irritation
for others:

When one seeks to juxtapose one's own views with an earlier message, i.e.
reply to an anterior posting, one should:

1. Facilitate differentiation between original and cited material by denoting
text from the former correspondence with initial line characters (">" and
"]" being typical), rather than simply append one's own material at the
end.

2. Quote, or cite, only those lines pertinent to your reply or commentary,
that is to say, avoid recapitulating the entire message.

3. Quote the earlier posting /previous/ to insertion of one's own script,
RATHER than including the preceding post at the /end/ of your message.
Hence, observers may see what instigated one's reaction, and following
that, specifically what one's reaction /was/.

In line with this is the popular procedure that "intermingles" the
respective texts, by which one replies to specific lines of text
individually, followed by another citation, followed by more response
material, and so forth.

4. Indicate the prior posting's authorship by identifying said message's
originator at the beginning of the earlier material, and /not/ by the
inclusion of the (typically) multiple-line signature file.

I only mention this in interests of the greater good and due to the
fact that others have made similar complaints. It is poor Net etiquette for
those who choose to plow through the volume of mail this list produces and
to have to contend with such obviously unnecessary verbiage -- especially
those members who must actually PAY for electronic mail service.

________________ _______ _______ ____ ____
\ _____ \ / \ / \ / \/ \ >>> Attack,
\ | | | |---___ | ___---| | || || | attack, and
| | | | |_____/ | \_____| | || || | if in doubt
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | | | | | | || || | ATTACK! <<<
"Iron hand in a | |___/ / \_______/ \_______/|____| |____| -=-=-=-=-=-
velvet glove." | / ||
-- Charles V |_______/ Dread Executor of Administrative Tasks for Hayden

^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^

From:	Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject:	Re: ADMIN: Quoting Previous Messages
Date:	Mon, 9 May 1994 13:00:23 -0700

Message no. 9 Hey, Doc. Doom
Good to see you back! Loved your Germany write-up. (Did you get
my re-write that I use in *my* world, and if so, what'd you think of it?)
I'm still learning about this system so your procedure notes will
help. Thanx,
Ivy K

From:	Doctor Doom <jch8169@*******.TAMU.EDU>
Subject:	ADMIN: Quoting Previous Messages
Date:	Thu, 21 Jul 1994 13:22:12 -0500

Message no. 10 Meine Kamaraden:

There are a number of tendencies of list members, pertaining to
procedures followed in replying/responding to a message, that have been the
source of no small degree of consternation for me. Since my recent elevation
to status to that of Dread Executor, I feel compelled to enumerate upon these
behaviors, in that I have received word that they are a source of irritation
for others:

When one seeks to juxtapose one's own views with an earlier message, i.e.
reply to an anterior posting, one should:

1. Facilitate differentiation between original and cited material by denoting
text from the former correspondence with initial line characters (">" and
"]" being typical), rather than simply append one's own material at the
end.

2. Quote, or cite, ONLY those lines pertinent to your reply or commentary,
that is to say, avoid recapitulating the ENTIRE message.

3. Quote the earlier posting /previous/ to insertion of one's own script,
RATHER than including the preceding post at the /end/ of your message.
Hence, observers may see what instigated one's reaction, and following
that, specifically what one's reaction /was/.

In line with this is the popular procedure that "intermingles" the
respective texts, by which one replies to specific lines of text
individually, followed by another citation, followed by more response
material, and so forth.

4. Indicate the prior posting's authorship by identifying said message's
originator at the beginning of the earlier material, and NOT by the
inclusion of the (typically) multiple-line signature file.

I only mention this in interests of the greater good and due to the
fact that others have made similar complaints. It is poor Net etiquette for
those who choose to plow through the volume of mail this list produces and
to have to contend with such obviously unnecessary verbiage -- especially
those members who must actually PAY for electronic mail service.

________________ _______ _______ ____ ____
\ _____ \ / \ / \ / \/ \ >>> Attack,
\ | | | |---___ | ___---| | || || | attack, and
| | | | |_____/ | \_____| | || || | if in doubt
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | | | | | | || || | ATTACK! <<<
"Iron hand in a | |___/ / \_______/ \_______/|____| |____| -=-=-=-=-=-
velvet glove." | / ||
-- Charles V |_______/ Dread Executor of Administrative Tasks for Hayden

^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^

From:	Jason Larke <jlarke@**.ITD.UMICH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: ADMIN: Quoting Previous Messages
Date:	Thu, 21 Jul 1994 14:28:14 -0400

Message no. 11 >>>>> On Thu, 21 Jul 1994 13:22:12 CDT, Doctor Doom
>>>>> <jch8169@*******.TAMU.EDU> said:

DD> 3. Quote the earlier posting /previous/ to insertion of
DD> one's own script, RATHER than including the preceding
DD> post at the /end/ of your message. Hence, observers may
DD> see what instigated one's reaction, and following that,
DD> specifically what one's reaction /was/.

DD> In line with this is the popular procedure that
DD> "intermingles" the respective texts, by which one
DD> replies to specific lines of text individually, followed
DD> by another citation, followed by more response material,
DD> and so forth.

Will you please stop harping on this? In many cases replies
are made which are perfectly intelligible if taken by
themselves, with the prior posting included only for
reference. If a message can stand by itself, there is no
reason to require the reader to scroll through the previous
posting in order to find the text of the message.

Furthermore, those of us who skim the list find it much
easier to see the new text first, allowing us to read and
potentially delete the message with a minimum of excess
verbiage to read.

I have no gripe with those who prepend reference material,
but appending should not be considered less valid.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Jason Larke- jlarke@*****.edu- Computer geek, philosophy major, bassist|
| "Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the gun." - Ash, from Army of Darkness |
| I don't speak for anyone except myself, so drop it. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

From:	Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: ADMIN: Quoting Previous Messages
Date:	Thu, 21 Jul 1994 14:42:55 -0400

Message no. 12 >>>>> "Jason" == Jason Larke <jlarke@**.ITD.UMICH.EDU>
writes:
>>>>> On Thu, 21 Jul 1994 13:22:12 CDT, Doctor Doom
>>>>> <jch8169@*******.TAMU.EDU> said:

DD> 3. Quote the earlier posting /previous/ to insertion of one's own
DD> script, RATHER than including the preceding post at the /end/ of your
DD> message. [...]

Jason> Will you please stop harping on this? In many cases replies are made
Jason> which are perfectly intelligible if taken by themselves, with the
Jason> prior posting included only for reference.

And in many other cases, this one for example, lack of context makes the
reply unintelligible. Clueful citing and editing keep the thread
intelligible, regardless of when you start reading it.

Jason> If a message can stand by itself, there is no reason to require the
Jason> reader to scroll through the previous posting in order to find the
Jason> text of the message.

This I'll agree with, though. But if that's the case, then there's no
reason to have included a citation in the first place, regardless of where
you put it.

Jason> Furthermore, those of us who skim the list find it much easier to
Jason> see the new text first, allowing us to read and potentially delete
Jason> the message with a minimum of excess verbiage to read.

"Who you call 'we,' Kemosabe?"

Jason> I have no gripe with those who prepend reference material,
Jason> but appending should not be considered less valid.

Me? I hate it. Why? It's awfully confusing to see "the answer" first,
completely out of context, with the original text at the end, with N lines
of signature separating them, especially when the new text and signature
are large enough to push the citation several screensful down and out of
sight.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | "When sub-culture becomes pop-culture,
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | it's time to move on to something new."
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! | --Dana Carvey

From:	Doctor Doom <JCH8169@***.TAMU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: ADMIN: Quoting Previous Messages
Date:	Thu, 21 Jul 1994 19:43:21 -0500

Message no. 13 Von Herrn Larke:

> Will you please stop harping on this? In many cases replies
> are made which are perfectly intelligible if taken by
> themselves, with the prior posting included only for

> Furthermore, those of us who skim the list find it much
> easier to see the new text first, allowing us to read and

Mein Herr, the excess verbiage in question are the previous messages being
quoted in their ENTIRETY!!! Such reiterations are tautologous and unbidden.

Moreover, there is also the o'ershadowing concern of subscribers' mailbuffers.
The splicing of previous messages to one's own /in toto/ demands considerable
space, and should be dispensed with should the information contained therein
not be required for full comprehension of the posting.

Furthermore, there are individuals who must finance their network access, and
e'en though they may possess the requisite space for what is by and large (in
the instance of prior correspondence juxtaposed wholesale to one's response)
parenthetical discourse. Hence, I have executed steps (e.g. the previous
posting) to prompt a reduction in the quantities of superfluous ascii on the
list.

I tire of perusing various various brief communiques, only to have a lengthy
posting posteriorly affixed thereto, and it is such behavior which I seek to
modify. Accordingly, when I disseminate such administrative exhortations,
such as those with which you apparently take issue, I am not "harping," rather
I seek to cause list members to be cognizant of this prodigal praxis.

In addition, (just to demonstrate I am not singling out one procedure for
castigation) mark the fact that I had heretofore articulated your (quite valid)
sentiments regarding those who "reference" or "intermingle" their
responses in
that they are admonished that their citations not be excessive, further
indicating that this is yet expressed in the interests of those saddled with
financing the utilization of or incommoded by the diminutive nature of their
mail utilities.

> I have no gripe with those who prepend reference material,
> but appending should not be considered less valid.

It IS less valid if it results in the iteration of otherwise irrelevant, and
consequently unnecessary, text.

However, should a list denizen truly insist upon reversing the order of
citations and therefore append material from the preceding message succeeding
his commentary (Although, I, unlike you, am rather skeptical as to how this
would contribute to the furthering of the enlightenment of the reader.), then
they should ONLY cite that material to which is being directly responded. As
you may notice, it is only the cases where one wholly and indiscriminately
replicates the forerunning message which I berated in my administrative
communique.

________________ _______ _______ ____ ____
\ _____ \ / \ / \ / \/ \ >>> Attack,
\ | | | |---___ | ___---| | || || | attack, and
| | | | |_____/ | \_____| | || || | if in doubt
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | | | | | | || || | ATTACK! <<<
"Iron hand in a | |___/ / \_______/ \_______/|____| |____| -=-=-=-=-=-
velvet glove." | / ||
-- Charles V |_______/ Dread Executor of Administrative Tasks for Hayden

^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^

From:	"C. Paul Douglas" <granite@*****.NET>
Subject:	Re: ADMIN: Quoting Previous Messages
Date:	Thu, 21 Jul 1994 21:47:14 -0400

Message no. 14 On Thu, 21 Jul 1994, Doctor Doom wrote:

> Von Herrn Larke:
>
> > Will you please stop harping on this? In many cases replies
>
> Mein Herr, the excess verbiage in question are the previous messages being
> quoted in their ENTIRETY!!! Such reiterations are tautologous and unbidden.
>
[excessive long windedness deleted]

Personally if I see one of those huge reposts I hit the delete key..Maybe
I miss some goo stuff that way but I have other things to do with my time
than spend 5 minutes trying to find the new one linner reply to a 15 page
repost...What it means is the person that committed the offense simply
wasted their time [in my case]...
-----------------------------GRANITE

From:	Max deLaubenfels <madness@*.WASHINGTON.EDU>
Subject:	Re: ADMIN: Quoting Previous Messages
Date:	Thu, 21 Jul 1994 21:31:11 -0700

Message no. 15 > Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 14:28:14 -0400
> From: Jason Larke <jlarke@**.ITD.UMICH.EDU>
> Subject: Re: ADMIN: Quoting Previous Messages
>
> >>>>> On Thu, 21 Jul 1994 13:22:12 CDT, Doctor Doom
> >>>>> <jch8169@*******.TAMU.EDU> said:
>
> DD> 3. Quote the earlier posting /previous/ to insertion of
> DD> one's own script, RATHER than including the preceding
> [etc]...
>
> Will you please stop harping on this? In many cases replies
> are made which are perfectly intelligible if taken by
> themselves, with the prior posting included only for
> reference. If a message can stand by itself, there is no
> reason to require the reader to scroll through the previous
> posting in order to find the text of the message.

My feeling on this is that it is easy to skip over the previous posting
if you are already familiar with it, but if you are coming into the
thread cold it really helps to see what the previous comments were. And
the order /is/ important -- seeing comments in logical order makes the
conversation much easier to understand.

>
> Furthermore, those of us who skim the list find it much
> easier to see the new text first, [etc...]
>

Actually, I skim the list and I prefer to see the older comments first --
I just scroll down over comments I've already read. It /does/ become
tedious if the previous comments aren't thinned out to the essentials by
the respondee (in cases when they could be), but for the most part I agree
with our ADMIN. Just MHO -- you have a valid point.

-Max

From:	MILLIKEN DAMION A <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Re: ADMIN: Quoting Previous Messages
Date:	Fri, 22 Jul 1994 21:00:16 +1000

Message no. 16 Doom writes:

> Furthermore, there are individuals who must finance their network access, and
> e'en though they may possess the requisite space for what is by and large (in
> the instance of prior correspondence juxtaposed wholesale to one's response)
> parenthetical discourse. Hence, I have executed steps (e.g. the previous
> posting) to prompt a reduction in the quantities of superfluous ascii on the
> list.

er, not to be rude or anything Doom, but you cant exactly talk (as they
say). Your message was one of the largest on my mailer, and while it didnt
have excessive quotation, it was particularily verbose (even for you, and
thats saying something :-)). Still mightyly fun to read though, and as
someone asked "do you really talk like that", and if that person gets ahold
of a tape, I say I'll be first in line to order one :-)

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong e-mail: u9467882@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE d@ H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v C+ U P? !L !3 E? N K- W+ M
!V po@ Y t(+) !5 !j r+(++) G(+) !tv(--) b++ D+ B? e+ u@ h+(*)
f+@ !r n--(----)@ !y+

From:	Doctor Doom <jch8169@*******.TAMU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: ADMIN: Quoting Previous Messages
Date:	Fri, 22 Jul 1994 12:40:49 -0500

Message no. 17 Von Herrn Milliken:

> er, not to be rude or anything Doom, but you cant exactly talk (as they
> say). Your message was one of the largest on my mailer, and while it didnt
> have excessive quotation, it was particularily verbose (even for you, and

My statements were not in regards to /original/ material, rather that of
unnecessary quotational reference from the preceding posting.

I was attempting to demonstrate in an exhaustive (exhausting?) manner the
justification for my position, naturally employing my particular penchant
for sesquipedalian (read: replete with complicated archaisms) speech.

Were there constraints placed upon new text, I concede that I would likely
be a grievous (and habitual) offender -- but not the only one.

[ There, how does that suffice for concise? ]

________________ _______ _______ ____ ____
\ _____ \ / \ / \ / \/ \ >>> Attack,
\ | | | |---___ | ___---| | || || | attack, and
| | | | |_____/ | \_____| | || || | if in doubt
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | | | | | | || || | ATTACK! <<<
"Iron hand in a | |___/ / \_______/ \_______/|____| |____| -=-=-=-=-=-
velvet glove." | / ||
-- Charles V |_______/ Dread Executor of Administrative Tasks for Hayden

^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^

From:	"J.D. Falk" <jdfalk@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: ADMIN: Quoting Previous Messages
Date:	Fri, 22 Jul 1994 18:52:02 -0400

Message no. 18 First, let me mention that as far as this Quoting Previous
Messages issue is concerned, I agree wholeheartedly with the good
Doctor. As I see it, the issue is simple: some people are lazy and
inconsiderate and don't care much about the readers later on down the
line, while others are smart enough to realize that if they want their
messages read then they'll have to format it to be readable.
Now, on to the actual response....

On Fri, 22 Jul 1994, Doctor Doom wrote:

> . . . naturally employing my particular penchant
> for sesquipedalian (read: replete with complicated archaisms) speech.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I knew it would happen eventually, but there is the first time
that there's been a word in one of your messages which I honestly cannot
recall ever having seen before. *grin*

> [ There, how does that suffice for concise? ]

Only once have I seen you write less -- and that included a
quoted error message saying that mail to me was bouncing.

From:	MILLIKEN DAMION A <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Re: ADMIN: Quoting Previous Messages
Date:	Sat, 23 Jul 1994 16:56:43 +1000

Message no. 19 Doom writes:

> My statements were not in regards to /original/ material, rather that of
> unnecessary quotational reference from the preceding posting.

I know, I was just having a jibe :-)

> Were there constraints placed upon new text, I concede that I would likely
> be a grievous (and habitual) offender -- but not the only one.

<chuckle>

> [ There, how does that suffice for concise? ]

Wow, it all fitted on _one_ page! Full of words I cannot fit meanings to and
which I have never seen (and hope never to see again). Well, not quite, but
usually I can put meanings on what you type, but this time you excelled, as
someone wrote, there was a word which I don't even recognise. Cool. [says
he, bowing in reverence in the direction he assumes Doom to be :-)]

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong e-mail: u9467882@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE d@ H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v C+ U P? !L !3 E? N K- W+ M
!V po@ Y t(+) !5 !j r+(++) G(+) !tv(--) b++ D+ B? e+ u@ h+(*)
f+@ !r n--(----)@ !y+

From:	Tim Skirvin <tskirvin@********.UNI.UIUC.EDU>
Subject:	Re: ADMIN: Quoting Previous Messages
Date:	Sat, 23 Jul 1994 16:33:59 -0500

Message no. 20 > My statements were not in regards to /original/ material, rather
> that of unnecessary quotational reference from the preceding
> posting.

(And then comes a monster .sig)

- Tim Skirvin

From:	Doctor Doom <jch8169@*******.TAMU.EDU>
Subject:	ADMIN: Quoting Previous Messages
Date:	Wed, 26 Oct 1994 23:47:28 -0500

Message no. 21 Meine Kameraden:

There are a number of tendencies of list members, pertaining to
procedures followed in replying/responding to a message, that have been the
source of no small degree of consternation for me. Since my recent elevation
to status to that of Dread Executor, I feel compelled to enumerate upon these
behaviors, in that I have received word that they are a source of irritation
for others:

When one seeks to juxtapose one's own views with an earlier message, i.e.
reply to an anterior posting, one should:

1. Facilitate differentiation between original and cited material by denoting
text from the former correspondence with initial line characters (">" and
"]" being typical), rather than simply append one's own material at the
end.

2. Quote, or cite, only those lines pertinent to your reply or commentary,
that is to say, avoid recapitulating the entire message.

3. Quote the earlier posting /previous/ to insertion of one's own script,
RATHER than including the preceding post at the /end/ of your message.
Hence, observers may see what instigated one's reaction, and following
that, specifically what one's reaction /was/.

In line with this is the popular procedure that "intermingles" the
respective texts, by which one replies to specific lines of text
individually, followed by another citation, followed by more response
material, and so forth.

4. Indicate the prior posting's authorship by identifying said message's
originator at the beginning of the earlier material, and /not/ by the
inclusion of the (typically) multiple-line signature file.

I only mention this in interests of the greater good and due to the
fact that others have made similar complaints. It is poor Net etiquette for
those who choose to plow through the volume of mail this list produces and
to have to contend with such obviously unnecessary verbiage -- especially
those members who must actually PAY for electronic mail service.

________________ _______ _______ ____ ____
\ _____ \ / \ / \ / \/ \ >>> Attack,
\ | | | |---___ | ___---| | || || | attack, and
| | | | |_____/ | \_____| | || || | if in doubt
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | | | | | | || || | ATTACK! <<<
"Iron hand in a | |___/ / \_______/ \_______/|____| |____| -=-=-=-=-=-
velvet glove." | / ||
-- Charles V |_______/ Dread Executor of Administrative Tasks for Hayden

^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^

From:	Doctor Doom <jch8169@*******.TAMU.EDU>
Subject:	ADMIN: Quoting Previous Messages
Date:	Sat, 28 Jan 1995 16:18:58 -0600

Message no. 22 Meine Kamaraden:

There are a number of tendencies of list members, pertaining to
procedures followed in replying/responding to a message, that have been the
source of no small degree of consternation for me. Since my recent elevation
to status to that of Dread Executor, I feel compelled to enumerate upon these
behaviors, in that I have received word that they are a source of irritation
for others:

When one seeks to juxtapose one's own views with an earlier message, i.e.
reply to an anterior posting, one should:

1. Facilitate differentiation between original and cited material by denoting
text from the former correspondence with initial line characters (">" and
"]" being typical), rather than simply append one's own material at the
end.

2. Quote, or cite, only those lines pertinent to your reply or commentary,
that is to say, avoid recapitulating the entire message.

3. Quote the earlier posting /previous/ to insertion of one's own script,
RATHER than including the preceding post at the /end/ of your message.
Hence, observers may see what instigated one's reaction, and following
that, specifically what one's reaction /was/.

In line with this is the popular procedure that "intermingles" the
respective texts, by which one replies to specific lines of text
individually, followed by another citation, followed by more response
material, and so forth.

4. Indicate the prior posting's authorship by identifying said message's
originator at the beginning of the earlier material, and /not/ by the
inclusion of the (typically) multiple-line signature file.

I only mention this in interests of the greater good and due to the
fact that others have made similar complaints. It is poor Net etiquette for
those who choose to plow through the volume of mail this list produces and
to have to contend with such obviously unnecessary verbiage -- especially
those members who must actually PAY for electronic mail service.

________________ _______ _______ ____ ____
\ _____ \ / \ / \ / \/ \ >>> Attack,
\ | | | |---___ | ___---| | || || | attack, and
| | | | |_____/ | \_____| | || || | if in doubt
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | | | | | | || || | ATTACK! <<<
"Iron hand in a | |___/ / \_______/ \_______/|____| |____| -=-=-=-=-=-
velvet glove." | / ||
-- Charles V |_______/ Dread Executor of Administrative Tasks for Hayden

^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^

From:	Doctor Doom <jch8169@*******.TAMU.EDU>
Subject:	ADMIN: Quoting Previous Messages
Date:	Sat, 18 Feb 1995 17:50:49 -0600

Message no. 23 Meine Kamaraden:

There are a number of tendencies of list members, pertaining to
procedures followed in replying/responding to a message, that have been the
source of no small degree of consternation for me. Since my recent elevation
to status to that of Dread Executor, I feel compelled to enumerate upon these
behaviors, in that I have received word that they are a source of irritation
for others:

When one seeks to juxtapose one's own views with an earlier message, i.e.
reply to an anterior posting, one should:

1. Facilitate differentiation between original and cited material by denoting
text from the former correspondence with initial line characters (">" and
"]" being typical), rather than simply append one's own material at the
end.

2. Quote, or cite, only those lines pertinent to your reply or commentary,
that is to say, avoid recapitulating the entire message.

3. Quote the earlier posting /previous/ to insertion of one's own script,
RATHER than including the preceding post at the /end/ of your message.
Hence, observers may see what instigated one's reaction, and following
that, specifically what one's reaction /was/.

In line with this is the popular procedure that "intermingles" the
respective texts, by which one replies to specific lines of text
individually, followed by another citation, followed by more response
material, and so forth.

4. Indicate the prior posting's authorship by identifying said message's
originator at the beginning of the earlier material, and /not/ by the
inclusion of the (typically) multiple-line signature file.

I only mention this in interests of the greater good and due to the
fact that others have made similar complaints. It is poor Net etiquette for
those who choose to plow through the volume of mail this list produces and
to have to contend with such obviously unnecessary verbiage -- especially
those members who must actually PAY for electronic mail service.

________________ _______ _______ ____ ____
\ _____ \ / \ / \ / \/ \ >>> Attack,
\ | | | |---___ | ___---| | || || | attack, and
| | | | |_____/ | \_____| | || || | if in doubt
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | | | | | | || || | ATTACK! <<<
"Iron hand in a | |___/ / \_______/ \_______/|____| |____| -=-=-=-=-=-
velvet glove." | / ||
-- Charles V |_______/ Dread Executor of Administrative Tasks for Hayden

^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^

From:	Eve Forward <lutra@******.COM>
Subject:	Re: ADMIN: Quoting Previous Messages
Date:	Sat, 18 Feb 1995 16:27:45 -0800

Message no. 24 DOOM writes:

>It is poor Net etiquette for
>those who choose to plow through the volume of mail this list produces and
>to have to contend with such obviously unnecessary verbiage --
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

(Starts to speak, then, fearing THAWPage, decides to remain silent.... :) )

-E

(oops, my ^'s slipped over too far right....)

From:	Doctor Doom <jch8169@*******.TAMU.EDU>
Subject:	ADMIN: Quoting Previous Messages
Date:	Tue, 18 Apr 1995 20:38:35 -0500

Message no. 25 Meine Kamaraden:

There are a number of tendencies of list members, pertaining to
procedures followed in replying/responding to a message, that have been the
source of no small degree of consternation for me, and as I have received
word that they are a source of vexation for others, I feel compelled to
enumerate upon them:

When one seeks to juxtapose one's own views with an earlier message, i.e.
reply to an anterior posting, one should:

1. Quote, or cite, only those lines pertinent to your reply or commentary,
that is to say, avoid recapitulating the entire message.

2. Facilitate differentiation between original and cited material by denoting
text from the former correspondence with initial line characters (">" and
"]" being typical), rather than simply append one's own material at the
end.

3. Quote the earlier posting /previous/ to insertion of one's own script,
RATHER than including the preceding post at the /end/ of your message.
Hence, observers may see what instigated one's reaction, and following
that, specifically what one's reaction /was/.

In line with this is the popular procedure that "intermingles" the
respective texts, by which one replies to specific lines of text
individually, followed by another citation, followed by more response
material, and so forth.

4. Indicate the prior posting's authorship by identifying said message's
originator at the beginning of the earlier material, and /not/ by the
inclusion of the (typically) multiple-line signature file.

I only mention this in interests of the greater good and due to the
fact that others have made similar complaints. It is poor Net etiquette for
those who choose to plow through the volume of mail this list produces and
to have to contend with such obviously unnecessary verbiage -- especially
those members who must actually PAY for electronic mail service.

________________ _______ _______ ____ ____
\ _____ \ / \ / \ / \/ \ >>> Attack,
\ | | | |---___ | ___---| | || || | attack, and
| | | | |_____/ | \_____| | || || | if in doubt
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | | | | | | || || | ATTACK! <<<
"Iron hand in a | |___/ / \_______/ \_______/|____| |____| -=-=-=-=-=-
velvet glove." | / ||
-- Charles V |_______/ Dread Executor of Administrative Tasks for Hayden

^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer