Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!bfmny0!tneff From: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) Newsgroups: news.newusers.questions Subject: Re: Citing .signatures (was Re: new Pink Floyd newsgroup) Message-ID: <15038@bfmny0.UU.NET> Date: 28 Dec 89 17:38:19 GMT References: <423@mirsa.UUCP> <475@sci34hub.UUCP> <89346.135842TAR@MAINE.BITNET> <507@sci34hub.UUCP> <`!D+R-@rpi.edu> Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) Lines: 22 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