Curiosity About Dittoheads

[+ Lucky]

Well, after years of posting here I have one question to which I can never get a satisfactory answer. Why is it that so many posters copy and paste the post they are responding to? Usually this happens even when the poster is giving the first reponse and there is no doubt that he is referring to the post above. But it happens all of the time. What are (and you know who you are) trying to accomplish? Do you think everyone is reading you first so you have to tell us what you are responding to?

 

Now I know that one of you will respond to this post by repeating this first, so go ahead. just tell me why!

[guptasa1]

For me, it depends on the post.

 

If it's multi-tiered and complex, I tend to break it down in this manner to respond point-by-point.

 

I also occasionally use this if I find a quote or something said especially interesting.

 

When things are more straightforward or shorter, I often don't do this though.

[Steven_Draker]

Reply with quote: it’s a clear way to underline the post or part of the post you’re referring to in a multipart thread. It’s simple ! :-)

[Doug69]

>Reply with quote: it’s a clear way to underline the

>post or part of the post you’re referring to in a multipart

>thread. It’s simple ! :-)

 

This is, indeed, quite simple. But, you forget: when a person is himself simple, that which is simple to most people will be quite bewildering and confounding to the simpleton.

 

It is this principle which accounts for the creation of this thread.

[+ Lucky]

Reply with quote is one thing. Reply with repeating the whole post is another. As usual, Doug only picks the part that allows his barb!

But, at least he still reads my posts!

[+ deej]

>Well, after years of posting here I have one question to

>which I can never get a satisfactory answer. Why is it that so

>many posters copy and paste the post they are responding to?

 

Partly it's tradition. In the early days, when the internet and usenet were the exclusive purvue of lab-coated technicians, long before anyone had heard of HTML, "newsreaders" (such as they were) didn't have any concept of displaying conversations in "threads". So if you wanted anyone in a conversation to have a clue what you were talking about you had to quote it.

 

However, in those days of yore (you remember yore, don't you?) every character transmitted was expensive, so people quoted selectively.

 

Somewhere along the way, threaded readers became available and MANY had quoting features where you could highlight a phrase you're responding to and hit reply. It would only include what you'd highlighted.

 

Enter Microsoft. :-( Every email program (and news reader) they've ever shipped has defaulted to quoting entire messages (and anything that came before) when you compose a reply. MANY people first learned of email from a Microsoft product, so they think that quoting "in whole" is the right way. (It isn't.)

 

These days you can start a flame war in almost any newsgroup on Usenet by asking "why don't you people trim your replies?"

 

Some quoting is necessary. In the short term, it may not seem like it. But after a thread acquires 200 posts your message may no longer be visually next to what you replied to. But quoting the whole original post never has been the cool thing to do, and there was a time when it actually cost money. Microsoft made it easy and made a lot of people think it's the right way. <shrug>

 

(and by the way this is a MAJOR oversimplification!)

[Chuck50]

I think it is to run Hooboys bandwith bill up and also to hear them self Think once again. HUGS Chuck

[Boston Guy]

Lucky,

 

The simple answer is "for clarity".

 

I know, I know, you and others will say "But you don't need to quote the entire post if you're the SECOND post!" And that's true.

 

But what if you're the THIRD post? And the person who posted twice wrote such a pithy, insightful message that it generated a torrent of replies and your poor reply, originally number three and oh-so-close to the original topic post, is now lost at the bottom, far away from the message it was replying to?

 

This kind of thing happens all the time. Unless you're the second poster, it's pretty hard to know just where your reply is going to end up. More to the point, in a thread with multiple levels, it can be tricky trying to figure out on the fly just who someone is responding to. When reading posts, I find quotes -- even the entire message that is being responded to, if necessary -- helpful to maintaining context. Otherwise, I sometimes have to go back and look at the thread's structure just to understand who someone is replying to.

 

So it's a clarity thing, basically, that people are using in an attempt to be kind to those who will read what they write.

 

Finally, Lucky, it's a small thing. I understand that small things can be aggravating, sometimes, but this one is a particularly small thing. :-) I'd suggest just skipping the quoted parts, reading what the poster wrote, and moving on.

 

Regards,

BG

[BuckyXTC]

>Well, after years of posting here I have one question to

>which I can never get a satisfactory answer. Why is it that so

>many posters copy and paste the post they are responding to?

>Usually this happens even when the poster is giving the first

>reponse and there is no doubt that he is referring to the post

>above. But it happens all of the time. What are (and you know

>who you are) trying to accomplish? Do you think everyone is

>reading you first so you have to tell us what you are

>responding to?

>

>Now I know that one of you will respond to this post by

>repeating this first, so go ahead. just tell me why!

 

 

Some folks do it because it annoys others.}(

 

Just kidding you, Lucky.:-)

[+ Lucky]

Et tu, Bucky?

 

Thanks, deej, for the explanation. I agree with BG that it is a small thing, but it happens a lot and I wondered why.

[FourAces]

I like this fixation of yours far better than the man, guy, boy one

 

RT

[Guest Mikel]

I appreciate this response...and think it is rather thorough and too over simplified

[Fit In LA]

ditto

[jackhammer91406]

>Well, after years of posting here I have one question to

>which I can never get a satisfactory answer.

 

AA's definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

 

Lucky, I am surprised at you, expecting a satisfactory answer! :+

[+ Lucky]

You should be. I usually settle only for perfect answers!

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Should, Would, Could

 

>You

>should

>be.

 

>settle

 

you traces your hand down my chest; I kiss you - hard.

 

>only

 

we both taste like stale beer, too much pot and just a little bit sour; I kiss you again, spread your legs, and wrap them around me until your ass rests on my balls.

 

>perfect

 

running my hands through your hair, I stroke your back, grab your ass; you kiss me - with more force and passion - your hot, sweaty ass rubbing my cock; you want it inside you.

 

http://www.gaydar.co.uk/francodisantis