Chiff and Fipple Forums

Peter Duggan wrote:

K

Tsk.

Nanohedron wrote:Tsk.

.

Well, my goodness.

fatmac wrote:............
Also wish more people would use the 'smilies', as it makes posts clearer, where there may be misinterpretation owing to global location.

And there is Poes Law to consider.

DrPhill wrote:And there is Poes Law to consider.

Talking of which, why is it that every time you post a bleedin' insect lands on my screen and crawls around on it annoyingly??!?!

DrPhill wrote:....why is it that every time you post a bleedin' insect lands on my screen and crawls around on it....

Because there is no 'googly eyed frog' to catch it? Dunno. I give up.... tell me?

DrPhill wrote:Because there is no 'googly eyed frog' to catch it?

Did you mean: ?
He is supposed to be at today's session in Long Beach. No time for his avatar to chase yours.

kkrell wrote:Did you mean: [img....]?

Yes, well spotted.

kkrell wrote:He is supposed to be at today's session in Long Beach.

Good to know he is still around somewhere - I have not seen a post by him for a long while.

I know, this was posted some time ago, but: I prefer this as well, but can we also then agree that the person being (partially) quoted will not then get het up at the person quoting them for "taking my post out of context!!!111" because only part of it was quoted (even though that's the only part the person is replying to or they used only part of the post to make clear they were replying to that post but didn't want to take up forum space repeating the whole thing)? Because I see that accusation on a regular basis (across the 'net, not necessarily here), especially when discussions become... heated.

How far do people take that objection? A partial quote can only rightly be said to be out of context if it reads differently away from the rest of the original.

Example: "People have been avoiding me as if I'm a criminal." Now, if someone quoted only the "I'm a criminal" part, I would be justified in saying that it was taken out of context. If they quoted the "People have been avoiding me" part, I would not.

Fortunately, members here tend to be reasonable.

Katharine wrote:I know, this was posted some time ago, but

Has still made little impression on some because we still get needless whole-quote posts all the time even when there's no need to quote at all!

FWIW, I'd like to see something in the C&F Consolidated Concordat on Policy (CCCP), but fear we may just have to keep wading (or perhaps peering?) through a growing morass of 'quote fog' instead...

Peter Duggan wrote:FWIW, I'd like to see something in the C&F Consolidated Concordat on Policy (CCCP)...

Of course it would have to be as a courtesy recommendation, not as hard-and-fast policy. We can't beat people up over it, but we could hope that influence might work.

What are you meaning by "quote fog"?

Nanohedron wrote:Of course it would have to be as a courtesy recommendation, not as hard-and-fast policy. We can't beat people up over it, but we could hope that influence might work.

A recommendation would be fine when I'm not proposing beating up anyone!

What are you meaning by "quote fog"?

Pages where you have to look hard to pick out the new content hiding between walls of quote. It's really counterproductive in obscuring it and preventing fluent assimilation.

Peter Duggan wrote:

Nanohedron wrote:What are you meaning by "quote fog"?

Pages where you have to look hard to pick out the new content hiding between walls of quote. It's really counterproductive in obscuring it and preventing fluent assimilation.

Oh, "walls of quote" - what I call the "blackened page". I'm good for those. You know, I think some people just can't be arsed to pare it down when they're quoting, even less to break up a screed into its component parts so as to tackle them point by point. In all fairness, it can take some drudgework if you intend to cover most or all of it. That never stopped me, though; but then, I'm detail-oriented.