PDA

View Full Version : why do some people remove the name when quoting someone?



WaxRubiks
2006-Oct-23, 12:55 PM
I have noticed the trend of people removing the attributation from their quotes. What is the reasoning behind this?

gwiz
2006-Oct-23, 01:10 PM
Try and kid people that it's your own wit rather than someone else's?

Blob
2006-Oct-23, 01:35 PM
"strength and honour" - Amiga, Quake frag master.

pghnative
2006-Oct-23, 01:56 PM
I have noticed the trend of people removing the attributation from their quotes. What is the reasoning behind this?I usually only see this when someone has had to manually add the "" codes, either because they are nesting quotes, or because they are quotining more than one person in their response.

WaxRubiks
2006-Oct-23, 01:58 PM
Some people seem to go out of their way to remove the name which can make it hard to read a thread. I thought there might be some underlying philosophy to it.

Tobin Dax
2006-Oct-23, 02:25 PM
Some people seem to go out of their way to remove the name which can make it hard to read a thread. I thought there might be some underlying philosophy to it.
Maybe they just miss the button? Someone, who's been here for a while (Lonewulf?), doesn't even use the quote function. His quotes are bolded instead. Personal preference, maybe?

Kaptain K
2006-Oct-23, 02:38 PM
When replying to just a small portion of a long post, it is easier to copy and paste the pertinent part using the "quote" icon in the reply box than to quote the entire post and then delete several irrelevent paragraphs.

Moose
2006-Oct-23, 02:41 PM
Pghnative has it right, I would think.

If someone is trimming text and responding to just a snippet from the middle using the mouse, windows sometimes insists upon highlighting the entire paragraph (including the tag) rather than just the bit that's been covered.

I suppose someone might think it's easier to let the tag die and then reestablish it later.

Swift
2006-Oct-23, 02:56 PM
It may also have to do with what the discussion is. Personally, for some funny thread in BABBling, I'm much less careful with attributions than for a serious debunking.

Frog March - if you notice something that is really suspect, you should report it as a bad post.

Celestial Mechanic
2006-Oct-23, 09:18 PM
I may be guilty of just the opposite: of inserting 's and attributing something to someone who is not a member of this forum. For example, in the "Please, help me fight Sitchin! Please!" thread, parallaxicality quotes some unnamed person in italics. When I quoted it, I didn't want anyone to think that parallaxicality wrote that, so I inserted another level of quotes and attributed the statement to "Anonymous Sitchin defender". I think most people who hang out here regularly know that there is no such member of that name.

There is always the risk that I might attribute something to, say, "Attila the Hun" and then find out that there really is a member who has chosen that nickname, in which case I would have to apologize and explain that I meant the historical Attila and not the forum member. :doh:

Casus_belli
2006-Oct-23, 10:24 PM
I have noticed the trend of people removing the attributation from their quotes. What is the reasoning behind this?


This never ever happens;)

PhantomWolf
2006-Oct-23, 11:04 PM
I tend to use the bold for quote because I tend to type out the code as well as the post and it's faster to type [ B ] than [ quote = name of whoever]. It's a habit I picked up off Jay.

Swift
2006-Oct-24, 02:09 AM
I have noticed the trend of people removing the attributation from their quotes. What is the reasoning behind this?
This never ever happens;)
Absolutely, I dare someone to show me a single example!

Tobin Dax
2006-Oct-24, 03:19 AM
I tend to use the bold for quote because I tend to type out the code as well as the post and it's faster to type [ B ] than [ quote = name of whoever]. It's a habit I picked up off Jay.
Sorry for the name mix-up, PhantomWolf. There are too many lupine screennames around. ;)

Celestial Mechanic
2006-Oct-24, 04:13 AM
Of course it doesn't help that the bulletin board software removes quotes when the quote button is used, forcing users to go back and copy and paste any nested quotes that are needed for establishing the context.

Maksutov
2006-Oct-24, 07:05 AM
Of course it doesn't help that the bulletin board software removes quotes when the quote button is used, forcing users to go back and copy and paste any nested quotes that are needed for establishing the context.May I quote you on that?

Celestial Mechanic
2006-Oct-24, 01:06 PM
May I quote you on that?
This is what I am talking about. Only the actual text in post number 851703 was brought in; the quote to post 851643 that was inside it was not.

The software is making a failed attempt at limiting quote nesting; the result is that users have to restore the quotes, sometimes with flawed results.

The Supreme Canuck
2006-Oct-24, 01:08 PM
Is there any way to fix that?

01101001
2006-Oct-24, 03:11 PM
Is there any way to fix that?

It's not broken, in my opinion. If you feel the need to provide more than one level of quotation, you should rethink your writing style.

Maksutov
2006-Oct-24, 03:17 PM
It's not broken, in my opinion. If you feel the need to provide more than one level of quotation, you should rethink your writing style.Sure wish I knew what you were replying to.

Swift
2006-Oct-24, 03:40 PM
Originally Posted by The Supreme Canuck
Is there any way to fix that?It's not broken, in my opinion. If you feel the need to provide more than one level of quotation, you should rethink your writing style.
I think nested quotes can be useful and I don't like the fact that I have to do it manually.

Argos
2006-Oct-24, 03:44 PM
I think the incapacity to deal with nested quotes is a major flaw in this software.

01101001
2006-Oct-24, 04:39 PM
[Just kidding, but this is about the level of value you get for multiply-nested quotations:]










Did.
Did not.
Did too.
Did not.
Did too.
Is there any way to fix that?

It's not broken, in my opinion. If you feel the need to provide more than one level of quotation, you should rethink your writing style.

I think nested quotes can be useful and I don't like the fact that I have to do it manually.

You have to? Don't do it manually. There's no need, if all the quoted material has appeared in the topic already. Quotes should provide a little context for the new words. They are not needed for lawyerly preservation of the deposition-to-date.

Rethink your writing style.

pghnative
2006-Oct-24, 05:32 PM
Rethink your writing style.
I think that that is a bit harsh. In a very active thread, there can be two or three trains of thought going on. Sometimes it's necessary to include another level for context.

Also, in ATM type threads, it is also often necessary to nest quotes so as to illustrate how an answer didn't satisfy what was asked.

If I Were In Charge Of The Asylum, I'd allow double nesting of quotes, and no more.

01101001
2006-Oct-24, 05:54 PM
I think that that is a bit harsh. In a very active thread, there can be two or three trains of thought going on. Sometimes it's necessary to include another level for context.

I, a reader, simply don't find the extra levels informative. They slow my reading down. Of course, that's just my opinion. And, I don't mean to be harsh. It's just that I don't buy the pity-argument -- it's hard adding quotes manually -- when extra levels of quotes is something I wish not to see.


If I Were In Charge Of The Asylum, I'd allow double nesting of quotes, and no more.

Apparently, everyone has their limits. We're only off by one.

ToSeek
2006-Oct-24, 07:00 PM
I think one more level of quotes would be useful. The current setup is Procrustean.

Gillianren
2006-Oct-24, 07:27 PM
I, a reader, simply don't find the extra levels informative. They slow my reading down. Of course, that's just my opinion. And, I don't mean to be harsh. It's just that I don't buy the pity-argument -- it's hard adding quotes manually -- when extra levels of quotes is something I wish not to see.

Perhaps, but you seem to be in the minority. I don't like having more than two nested quotes, but I have been in conversations in which having two would be very helpful. And it is a pain. I just figured out how to nest quotes yesterday. What's more, I find it rude to tell other people to change their writing style--unless, of course, it consists of intentionally incorrect spelling and grammar. I may criticize small points now and again, but frankly, I'm not sure how one would go about changing one's writing style to make up for the lack of nesting quotes.


Apparently, everyone has their limits. We're only off by one.

True, certainly, but again, the majority seems to disagree with you. Granted, we're not in a democracy, here--more a sort of benevolent dictatorship with two benevolent dictators--so it doesn't matter what either you or I think; it matters what Phil and Fraser think.

Disinfo Agent
2006-Oct-24, 07:38 PM
I think one more level of quotes would be useful. The current setup is Procrustean.I agree. A quote within a quote is obviously not meant to make the readers read the same thing twice, but it can clarify the context. It's particularly useful when debating posters whose rhetorical technique includes denying or distorting what they or others wrote a couple of pages back.

The Supreme Canuck
2006-Oct-24, 07:57 PM
Yes, one additional level of nested quotation would be perfect. (My opinion, of course)

mickal555
2006-Oct-25, 06:22 AM
....remember that thread we had on the old baut, just kept quoting.

I loved the BA's reaction...

Van Rijn
2006-Oct-25, 06:28 AM
Perhaps, but you seem to be in the minority. I don't like having more than two nested quotes, but I have been in conversations in which having two would be very helpful. And it is a pain. I just figured out how to nest quotes yesterday. What's more, I find it rude to tell other people to change their writing style--unless, of course, it consists of intentionally incorrect spelling and grammar. I may criticize small points now and again, but frankly, I'm not sure how one would go about changing one's writing style to make up for the lack of nesting quotes.


True, certainly, but again, the majority seems to disagree with you. Granted, we're not in a democracy, here--more a sort of benevolent dictatorship with two benevolent dictators--so it doesn't matter what either you or I think; it matters what Phil and Fraser think.

It also matters what the software will allow, but I agree - I would be very much in favor of a second level of quoting. Writing style aside, it also depends on the nature of the discussion. Often I'll be in a back and forth discussion with questions and quick comments. For instance, I might ask:


What is the expected mass of a gallup-maker?

and the answering post might look like:



What is the expected mass of a gallup-maker?25-50 pounds.

And given that there could easily be a list of responses in one post, when I quote a post for further comment this is how it might look in the editor:


25-50 pounds.

You should read Oolong's guide to zorboloxy.

What are you talking about?

The angle needs to be 90 degrees.

Mars.



Without context, nobody is going to understand this. I know that because I often need to refer to the post in another window so that I can understand what I'm responding to. Simply saying it is a matter of writing style doesn't cut it. One way or another, the context must be included, and if another level of quoting was allowed, in many cases that wouldn't be an issue.