stuckincincy Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 About quoting long posts. Now, we know that quoting gets a reply back to the attention of the original poster. Nothing wrong with that. If one wishes to make comment of length on a lengthy post, that's fine. But I do get tired of folks quoting a 2 or 3 page post, and replying "Your post is too long for me". I'm tired of having to scroll through such. I've even seen folks quoting a lengthy post, then accusing the poster of using up "bandwidth". Evidently, some do not know that you can edit the quoted source, just leaving a line or two, preferably with a tailing ellipsis... The original poster gets the reply without the lengthy regurgitation. Pretty simple, eh?
theesir Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 About quoting long posts. Now, we know that quoting gets a reply back to the attention of the original poster. Nothing wrong with that. If one wishes to make comment of length on a lengthy post, that's fine. But I do get tired of folks quoting a 2 or 3 page post, and replying "Your post is too long for me". I'm tired of having to scroll through such. I've even seen folks quoting a lengthy post, then accusing the poster of using up "bandwidth". Evidently, some do not know that you can edit the quoted source, just leaving a line or two, preferably with a tailing ellipsis... The original poster gets the reply without the lengthy regurgitation. Pretty simple, eh? 581723[/snapback] I agree
stuckincincy Posted January 24, 2006 Author Posted January 24, 2006 I agree 581742[/snapback] I can't decide if its laziness, ignorance, or cantankerousness.
erynthered Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 About quoting long posts. Now, we know that quoting gets a reply back to the attention of the original poster. Nothing wrong with that. If one wishes to make comment of length on a lengthy post, that's fine. But I do get tired of folks quoting a 2 or 3 page post, and replying "Your post is too long for me". I'm tired of having to scroll through such. I've even seen folks quoting a lengthy post, then accusing the poster of using up "bandwidth". Evidently, some do not know that you can edit the quoted source, just leaving a line or two, preferably with a tailing ellipsis... The original poster gets the reply without the lengthy regurgitation. Pretty simple, eh? 581723[/snapback] What?
stuckincincy Posted January 24, 2006 Author Posted January 24, 2006 What? 581814[/snapback] Stop posting your resume.
erynthered Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 Stop posting your resume. 581834[/snapback] Rove erased it, and he is watching me, shhh.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 About quoting long posts. Now, we know that quoting gets a reply back to the attention of the original poster. Nothing wrong with that. If one wishes to make comment of length on a lengthy post, that's fine. But I do get tired of folks quoting a 2 or 3 page post, and replying "Your post is too long for me". I'm tired of having to scroll through such. I've even seen folks quoting a lengthy post, then accusing the poster of using up "bandwidth". Evidently, some do not know that you can edit the quoted source, just leaving a line or two, preferably with a tailing ellipsis... The original poster gets the reply without the lengthy regurgitation. Pretty simple, eh? 581723[/snapback] Your post is too long for me.
wnyguy Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 About long length, that's fine. But I do get too long. I'm tired of tail... Pretty simple, eh? 581723[/snapback] Is this the sort of editing you meant?
stuckincincy Posted January 24, 2006 Author Posted January 24, 2006 Is this the sort of editing you meant? 581881[/snapback] You earn 1 gold star.
Just Jack Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 About quoting long posts. .... blah blah blah.... Pretty simple, eh? 581723[/snapback] okay.
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 I can't decide if its laziness, ignorance, or cantankerousness. 581811[/snapback] Cantankerousness
stuckincincy Posted January 24, 2006 Author Posted January 24, 2006 Cantankerousness 581968[/snapback] Cantankerousness. adj. Can.TANK.er.os.ness A fancy word, that imparts a description of an action in place of a term that begins with pri and ends with ck. See also the colloquial shortening of the proper name, "Richard."
Beerball Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 Cantankerousness. adj. Can.TANK.er.os.ness A fancy word, that imparts a description of an action in place of a term that begins with pri and ends with ck. See also the colloquial shortening of the proper name, "Richard." 582030[/snapback] Rich? And I have a pet peeve as well. Why don't the waitresses at Hooters ever sport a little nip? I swear to Jesus that they must wear armor plated bras. What's up with that?
stuckincincy Posted January 24, 2006 Author Posted January 24, 2006 Rich? And I have a pet peeve as well. Why don't the waitresses at Hooters ever sport a little nip? I swear to Jesus that they must wear armor plated bras. What's up with that? 582048[/snapback] Rich.... To Hooter's..why? They get big tips all night long already...
ASCI Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 And here I thought you going to explain to me what a peeve is. Is it a mammal?
Beerball Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 Rich.... To Hooter's..why? They get big tips all night long already... 582088[/snapback] Thought of another peeve...Newbies
stuckincincy Posted January 24, 2006 Author Posted January 24, 2006 And here I thought you going to explain to me what a peeve is. Is it a mammal? 582135[/snapback] It's a cranial affliction.
ASCI Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 It's a cranial affliction. 582147[/snapback] sounds painful
Chef Jim Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 I always edit posts. Makes it easier to make my point by taking theirs out of context.
Recommended Posts