On May 27, 2008, at 8:04 AM, Tobias Weber wrote:

> On a mailing list and in most newsreaders you only see one message
> body
> at a time, especially when you "fetch unread" often. In that case it
> does make sense to quote the immediate sentence you are replying to.

Probably. However, consider the history of written communication. When
people wrote letters to each other, or to newspapers, they didn't
usually quote. There's another technique, which incorporates context
into your reply.

I actually spent about a month not quoting anything. No meaning was
lost. But it was much harder work, so I can see why (brief) quoting is
better.

>> people felt impelled to prefix their remarks with every other remark
>> that's already been made.
>
> But we do! Watch any talkshow: So Mr A basically said that B sucks. I
> concur. Whats your opinion, Mr C?

First, this forum/newsgroup is not a talkshow - it's a time-extended
conversation. People just talk, sometimes to each other, sometimes
over each other. And even in a talkshow, as when a newsperson is
interviewing multiple people at a time (which I think is what you
might be referring to), the entire previous conversation is not
repeated every time someone has something to say.

Imagine a conversation like this:

A: I like ham

B: You like ham. I agree, especially with eggs

A: I like ham and you said that I like ham and then you agreed, adding
that eggs are good with ham. I don't like eggs, though.

B: You like ham, and I agreed, adding the part about the eggs, and
then you...

That's what a typical overquoted Usenet thread is equivalent to.

///ark