For God's sake everyone.

You don't have to quote everything that came above in the postings in
regard to your replies; simply state the person that you are replying to
in your posting, and what exactly they wrote that you are responding to.
It certainly saves anyone reading your postings a great deal of time,
particularly when your new input to the message thread consists of
around ten new words added to around a thousand words that were sent in
the posting that you are replying to - after the whole quoted message's
total thread is added to it, and appears again-and-again in all new
postings to the original subject posting.
In doing this, you are sending postings that are around 90% repeated
words.... that anyone who wants to go through and see what you _really_
just said in your reply to someone else's posting has a hard time doing it.
Ignore the rest of the forest's trees; let's see what the tree that is
_you_ says.

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
You don't have to quote everything that came above in the postings in
regard to your replies; simply state the person that you are replying to
in your posting, and what exactly they wrote that you are responding to.
It certainly saves anyone reading your postings a great deal of time,
particularly when your new input to the message thread consists of around
ten new words added to around a thousand words that were sent in the
posting that you are replying to - after the whole quoted message's total
thread is added to it, and appears again-and-again in all new postings to
the original subject posting.
In doing this, you are sending postings that are around 90% repeated
words.... that anyone who wants to go through and see what you _really_
just said in your reply to someone else's posting has a hard time doing
it.
Ignore the rest of the forest's trees; let's see what the tree that is
_you_ says.

Pat

You're right, Pat; we shouldn't do that. (oh, come on; you knew that was
coming!) ;-P

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
You don't have to quote everything that came above in the postings in
regard to your replies;

OM, is that you?


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 07:01:08 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:

You don't have to quote everything that came above in the postings in
regard to your replies;

....I've been screaming at Rand to do that for years now. Not that he
listens any more than Guthball or the rest of the dogsucking trash
that crosspost their crap over here rather than keeping on their own
groups where it originated.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
...
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
You don't have to quote everything that came above in the postings in
regard to your replies; simply state the person that you are replying to
in your posting, and what exactly they wrote that you are responding to.
It certainly saves anyone reading your postings a great deal of time,
particularly when your new input to the message thread consists of around
ten new words added to around a thousand words that were sent in the
posting that you are replying to - after the whole quoted message's total
thread is added to it, and appears again-and-again in all new postings to
the original subject posting.
In doing this, you are sending postings that are around 90% repeated
words.... that anyone who wants to go through and see what you _really_
just said in your reply to someone else's posting has a hard time doing
it.
Ignore the rest of the forest's trees; let's see what the tree that is
_you_ says.

Pat

You're right, Pat; we shouldn't do that. (oh, come on; you knew that was
coming!) ;-P

Really funny Allen! Good thing few people use dial-up these days. :-)

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 16:54:12 -0500, in a place far, far away, OM
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 07:01:08 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:

You don't have to quote everything that came above in the postings in
regard to your replies;

...I've been screaming at Rand to do that for years now.

I do.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Rand Simberg wrote:

...I've been screaming at Rand to do that for years now.

I do.

Fascist love each other almost as much as they love screaming at each other.

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
...
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
You don't have to quote everything that came above in the postings in
regard to your replies; simply state the person that you are replying to
in your posting, and what exactly they wrote that you are responding to.
It certainly saves anyone reading your postings a great deal of time,
particularly when your new input to the message thread consists of
around ten new words added to around a thousand words that were sent in
the posting that you are replying to - after the whole quoted message's
total thread is added to it, and appears again-and-again in all new
postings to the original subject posting.
In doing this, you are sending postings that are around 90% repeated
words.... that anyone who wants to go through and see what you _really_
just said in your reply to someone else's posting has a hard time doing
it.
Ignore the rest of the forest's trees; let's see what the tree that is
_you_ says.

Pat

You're right, Pat; we shouldn't do that. (oh, come on; you knew that was
coming!) ;-P

Really funny Allen! Good thing few people use dial-up these days. :-)

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein



I agree, I shouldn't have done it. THERE I GO AGAIN!

Jeff Findley wrote:
You're right, Pat; we shouldn't do that. (oh, come on; you knew that was
coming!) ;-P


Really funny Allen! Good thing few people use dial-up these days. :-)



I wanted to give a example of what it looked like.
And it's a damn silly thing to do.
I've seen some of those quote trains that go on for twenty or thirty
postings.

Pat

On Jul 29, 4:16*am, Pat Flannery wrote:

I've seen some of those quote trains that go on for twenty or thirty
postings.

Whereas Nostradamus's quote trains were only four lines long. I think
we can all learn something from him.