Text 201, 69 rader
Skriven 2012-07-11 07:31:44 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
    Kommentar till text 186 av Nicholas Boel (10186.fidonews)
Ärende: .fidonet
================
Nicholas Boel wrote to Robert Bashe on Tuesday July 10 2012 at 22:06:

 >> > As you can tell, my editor strips out your added initials (this
 >> > is the paragraph your GoldEd added TM to).

 >> :-( That's even worse than not putting them in in the first place.

 NB> Not in my opinion. If you read the message before quoting it, and
 NB> followed along in the thread, you should know who said what.

In other words, if you read the entire thread from beginning to end you know
what's going on, otherwise you end up asking "who wrote what". I can't say I
find that very helpful.

 >> But your editor is doing even worse than not adding the initials,
 >> it apparently strips existing ones to make absolutely sure nobody
 >> knows who wrote what.

 NB> Sure. It strips out crap added in by other editors. I want the
 NB> original message as typed. Not with more crap added in by multiple
 NB> editors before it gets here.

I think you misunderstand the significance of the initials on quotes.

NB> YOU say it's unsuitable for fido. Yet it's been accepted for years.

In Usenet. Fido isn't Usenet.

 >> The only explanation I could see for such a thing would be if the
 >> programmer was only used to Usenet and simply carried the customs
 >> there into fido unchanged.

 NB> Nope. The programmers are following the standards. The programmers of
 NB> the editors you're using have gone above and beyond the standards to
 NB> their own liking. You just got accustomed to that.

Nobody who's been in fido for long is accustomed to anonymous quoting. Mostly
it's tolerated because we assume the writers are unaware of the problem or have
software that is incapable of proper quoting, but _intentional_ stripping of
useful information is another matter entirely.

 >> I'm sorry, Nicholas, but I believe in clarity and simplicity, and
 >> something like that would never last longer than a short test phase
 >> in my system.

 NB> You can call me Nick. It's okay. :)

Old Nick or St. Nick? ;-)

 NB> If you were to actually believe in clarity and simplicity, you
 NB> wouldn't want a bunch of stuff added to the original message after
 NB> the fact.

Again, you confuse proper, unequivocal quoting with "stuff" added to the
original message to improve reader comprehension. Nobody appreciates messages
in which several persons have written, but without extra knowledge the reader
cannot know who wrote what.

 NB> If misunderstandings crop up, they can definitely be dealt with then,
 NB> but usually it's because someone wasn't paying much attention in the
 NB> first place.

A nice way of switching the blame for misunderstandings to the deceived. I
prefer clarity, as already mentioned.

Cheers, Bob

--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-0613
 * Origin: Jabberwocky System - 02363-56073 ISDN/V34 (2:2448/44)