Text 265, 79 rader
Skriven 2012-07-11 18:28:03 av Nicholas Boel (10265.fidonews)
    Kommentar till text 201 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: .fidonet
================
  Re: .fidonet
  By: Robert Bashe to Nicholas Boel on Wed Jul 11 2012 07:31 am

 > 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.

Not at all. Even the message you are replying to, 99% of the time you are
replying to one person, so why would you even quote what the 3rd party
contributers to that thread posted in the first place?

Entire messages should not be quoted. The person, and what you are quoting
should be all the message needs.

 > > > 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.

I always know who I'm replying to. There is never a question in my mind. This
"feature" was even a request by me!  It's toggleable, though, and it will not
be turned off on my end.

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

I must. Or, I just plain out don't find it significant at all.

 > In Usenet. Fido isn't Usenet.

It definitely wasn't at one time. But don't fret, it's getting closer and
closer. :)

 > 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.

Or.. some people just don't find it a "problem."

And the intentional stripping was my idea, actually. I don't appreciate the
fact that there's editors out there that DON'T strip out old quote brackets and
names. I don't like getting messages like this:

RB> NB> AB> CD> EF> GH> IJ> > > > > And then the line is cut off at the end eve

Does that look easier and readable? I've seen it, and I'm sure you have too.

 > Old Nick or St. Nick? ;-)

I would be blasphemous if I said I was a saint of any kind. And I'm not very
old, so Nick is just fine. :)

 > 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.

But it is not "proper," since what is to be proper is already clearly
documented by the FTSC. This software, happens to follow those specs.

You do, however, have the ability to request that the FTSC make a change in
that aspect. Whether the request is to be granted or not, is left to be seen.
If anything were to change, I'm sure developers would comply. Otherwise, as of
right now, they are complying. It's just a quirk you have that irritates you,
whereas there's quite a few BBBS and Synchronet sysops out there. So it will
keep irritating you, unfortunately.

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

I wasn't switching blame on anything. Myself was even included in that
statement. If I were to ever NOT know who I was replying to, I would definitely
deal with it then. But I doubt that would ever happen, since I only quote WHO
and WHAT I'm specifically replying to, rather than quoting entire messages.

--
Nick aka axisd - telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org
                 http://pharcyde.org
--- SBBSecho 2.13-Linux
 * Origin: thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin) (1:154/10)