sdaniels7114

Its a million time better to break up a person's post and respond outside the quoted areas than it is to put your own words, even if bolded, into a quote that's attributed to someone else. Lets say you wanted to end up with something like this:


something that agrees or disagrees with the above here
more something
and even more something
and one last something here.


The correct/non annoying way to do this is to
1) hit the qoute button rather than the respond button. Everyone seems to have figured this out, but the next part is tricky so PAY ATTENTION.

2) Look at what the software gives you. You'll notice that you get the post to be quoted surrounded by things called quote tags. One at the beginning that will look like this:

[QUOT=PatsFanInVa;452674]

I changed the spelling of quote to quot so you could see what the tag looks like. That's right, you don't HAVE to hit the quote button to quote someone. You just have to use the proper code.

You also have one at the end that looks like this:

[/QUOT]

Same thing with the spelling. You don't have to remember or even type that code. Copy/Paste is your friend here. Just Copy the beginning tag and the end tag and paste them wherever you want to 'cut in' so to speak and write whatever you want in between. If you do it right, the quoted post and your words will end up looking something like this in the reply window:


[QUOT=PatsFanInVa;452674]By the way, if this needs to go to Religion, I am okay with that.[/QUOT]
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
[QUOT=PatsFanInVa;452674]
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
[/QUOT]
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
[QUOT=PatsFanInVa;452674]
I figured we're pretty much still not straying from the history/politic of religion.
[/QUOT]
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
[QUOTE=PatsFanInVa;452674]But I'm glad to take it elsewhere if anybody feels we are significantly straying from politics and into religion.
PFnV[/QUOT]
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Once again I changed the spelling of quote to quot so everyone could see what goes in the reply window. The XXXXX's represent what you'd want to say. Just remember the format. First comes the opening quote tag, then there's the individual part of the post you want to respond to, the the closing quote tag, then your own words and then simply repeat to the end.

Many people struggle with who said what if you put your own words into the middle of someone else's. Its even more annoying and hard to understand when you put stuff in regular type at the end. You can also count on someone else coming along and quoting the whole F'ing thing and making it entirely impossible for anyone to understand what anyone else said. Flame wars are started this way.

Everyone's consideration in this matter is greatly appreciated.

PressCoverage

really a good point...

editing someone's quote, maliciously or innocently, alters the thread's integrity... let's just all agree to not do it... would be best, and avoid confusion at least...

Real World

I think people do it because it's quicker. Most people are at work when they reply. I usually am.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

gomezcat

I couldn't agree more with your post.

__________________
The blog of our recent trip to The States (September and October 2012):


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

sdaniels7114

Its not really quicker. The Bold tags go in the exact same spots the quote tags should go. Its just a matter of using the right type of tag.

Fogbuster

[QUOT=PatsFanInVa;452674]By the way, if this needs to go to Religion, I am okay with that.[/QUOT]
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
[QUOT=PatsFanInVa;452674]
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
[/QUOT]
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
[QUOT=PatsFanInVa;452674]
I figured we're pretty much still not straying from the history/politic of religion.
[/QUOT]
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


Religion and politics is one. The first is overt, the second is covert.

Keep it real.


//

PressCoverage

no it isn't one.... keep it real...

Fogbuster

Everybody's religious views, pro, con, or indifferent, come out in their politics. Always. Not even debatable.

Extreme examples: Hitler was anti-religious, and it was reflected in his attacks against his neighbors, all in the name of the "new master race".

Stalin laughed at religion: "How many divisions does the Pope have?" he sneered.

Clinton carried a one-ton Bible but left it in on his desk at home; and it showed.

Bush 43 carries a big Bible around, and reads it at home, sometimes misses a page or three; and it shows.

Etc., etc.


//