tale@cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (12/28/89)
In article <507@sci34hub.UUCP> gary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) goes
on a bit of an excursion from the Pink Floyd group argument into a
paragraph which complains mightily about some .signature tom-foolery
perpetuated by Thom Rounds. A rather odd flame of this appears under
the original subject in alt.flame.
I am here reposting a somewhat milder version of the question I would
sincerely like answered. Why do people quote .signatures in follow-
ups when they are not making any comment regarding them? I honestly
do not see the point. Thanks to those who provide some insight into
this phenomenon.
Dave
--
(setq mail '("tale@cs.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))king@cell.mot.COM (Steven King) (12/29/89)
In article <`!D+R-@rpi.edu> tale@cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes: >I am here reposting a somewhat milder version of the question I would >sincerely like answered. Why do people quote .signatures in follow- >ups when they are not making any comment regarding them? I honestly >do not see the point. You got me scratchin', Dave. I honestly think including someone else's .signature file in your post is out of line. Then again, I think that the quoting features of the various mail readers are far overused in the first place. -- ---------------------------------------------------+--------------------------- In times like these, it helps to recall that there | Steve King (708) 991-8056 have always been times like these. | ...uunet!motcid!king (Paul Harvey) | ...ddsw1!palnet!stevek
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (12/29/89)
In article <`!D+R-@rpi.edu> tale@cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes: > Why do people quote .signatures in follow- >ups when they are not making any comment regarding them? I honestly >do not see the point. There is no rational reason for it. Some folks simply adopt a style of posting where you start with everything the other fellow wrote, and ADD your own thoughts in and around the quoted material, without deleting ANYTHING no matter how wasteful or irrelevant to the followup. It's like, EVERYTHING in the original article gets a tit-for-tat response, right up to the other fellow's signature, which is quoted last and 'responded to' with your own. News postings are a species of writing, and as such you will find every grade of effort out there, from crappy to sublime. There is only so much anyone can do. One piece of advice everyone can use is to READ YOUR OWN POSTINGS after submitting them. It is amazing the things you will catch. -- "The country couldn't run without Prohibition. ][ Tom Neff That is the industrial fact." -- Henry Ford, 1929 ][ tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
ted@helios.ucsc.edu (Ted Cantrall) (12/29/89)
>In article <`!D+R-@rpi.edu> tale@cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes: >>Why do people quote .signatures in follow- >>ups when they are not making any comment regarding them? I honestly > I think i recall someone saying at one time that they did that because they didn't know how to delete. -ted- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ted@helios.ucsc.edu | "The opinions are mine... (408)459-2110 | ...the facts are public domain." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) (12/30/89)
In article <631@grape3.UUCP>, king@cell.mot.COM (Steven King) writes: > In article <`!D+R-@rpi.edu> tale@cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes: > >[ ... ] Why do people quote .signatures in follow- > >ups when they are not making any comment regarding them? [ ... ] When quoting things, it might be appropriate to attribute the quote a little better than the followed-up followed-up articles' id string. A newsreader might want to mail a question to someone regarding a statement in a posting, without burning bandwith by posting. I would agree that keeping multiple complete .sigs in a followup is not appropriate. Altering a comment or quote to change the meaning, without flagging the change as having been made by the follower-uper, is not (in my opinion) appropriate at all. > You got me scratchin', Dave. I honestly think including someone else's > .signature file in your post is out of line. Then again, I think that the > quoting features of the various mail readers are far overused in the first > place. Enough to identify the poster, which is easiest if everyone has their name and email address on one line, somewhere in there (which poses a slight problem in your case, if I want to attribute your remarks without completely rewriting your .sig :-) ). As far as the 15-line character graphics, flip sayings, SnailMail addresses, company or school affiliation, etc., those can be trashed. What's left, though should either be as it was posted, or marked to show the changes and changer. Quoting is overused. I know. I just got tired of a minor flamefest with someone who liked to include lots of stuff, and objected in one case to me deleting my own words from a follow-up to one of my prior postings. But it was ok for him to make unattributed alterations, my objections to which (I think) triggered Dave to ask this question. [ left part of .sig trimmed ] > | Steve King (708) 991-8056 > | ...uunet!motcid!king > | ...ddsw1!palnet!stevek -- Gary Heston { uunet!sci34hub!gary } System Mismanager SCI Technology, Inc. OEM Products Department (i.e., computers) Hestons' First Law: I qualify virtually everything I say.
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (12/31/89)
In article <514@sci34hub.UUCP> gary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) writes: >In article <631@grape3.UUCP>, king@cell.mot.COM (Steven King) writes: >> In article <`!D+R-@rpi.edu> tale@cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes: [etc...] >A newsreader might want to mail a question to someone regarding a >statement in a posting, without burning bandwith by posting. This is no justification for the silly practice of quoting signatures. Look at the 'In article' stack above! Three mail addresses, right there lookin' at ya. Admittedly some braindamaged versions of RN put 'yoursite.UUCP' instead of the real address, but when this happens all you have to do is ^P back to the quoted article and use the signature you see there. Anyone who is THAT assiduous about making sure readers can send mail replies to people in the thread can change the 'In article' address string himself to match the signature, rather than clogging followups with the original. -- "Nature loves a vacuum. Digital \O@/ Tom Neff doesn't." -- DEC sales letter /@O\ tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
davis@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (Jim Davis) (01/10/90)
David C Lawrence <tale@cs.rpi.edu> asked:
dcl> Why do people quote .signatures in followups when they are not
dcl> making any comment regarding them?
Steven King <king@cell.mot.COM> wrote:
sk> You got me scratchin', Dave. I honestly think including someone
sk> else's .signature file in your post is out of line. Then again,
sk> I think that the quoting features of the various mail readers
sk> are far overused in the first place.
and Gary Heston <gary@sci34hub.UUCP> wrote:
gh> When quoting things, it might be appropriate to attribute the quote a
gh> little better than the followed-up followed-up articles' id string.
gh> ... Enough to identify the poster, which is easiest if everyone has
gh> their name and email address on one line, somewhere in there (which
gh> poses a slight problem in your case, if I want to attribute your
gh> remarks without completely rewriting your .sig :-) ).
I would like to add that there are far better quoting styles than
the style used so far in this message chain. Personally I find the
style shown above to be quite pleasant to read. The <tab> character
(spaces if you prefer to avoid tabs) sets off the attribution from the
text. The id field is chosen to be unique within a posting (by
appending numbers is necessary). I would appreciate comments and
suggestions on this style which I started using several years ago.
Automatic quoting software can be a bane, or a boon. Some of
the distinction is up to how it is used.
--
Jim Davis (James W. Davis) Palo Alto, CA (415)857-4036
davis@hplabs.hp.com {any_of_the_biggies}!hplabs!davis