[Groop] Groop Quoting, Pirates, and Numbered Paragraphs.

[Rick Loomis]

At 09:32 AM 3/8/06, you wrote:

>Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 10:32:31 -0600
>From: "promethea" <promethea at kc.rr.com>
>Subject: Re: [Groop] Groop Digest, complaints, criticism, and pirates.
>To: "'Rick Loomis'" <rick at flyingbuffalo.com>, <groop at groo.com>
>Message-ID: <000b01c642cd$e601e2d0$b601a8c0 at TOSHIBA>
>Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="US-ASCII"
>
> > As I explained to you in a private message, I did not single you out.
> > I was responding to everyone and had to quote something. I randomly
> > grabbed one. Yours seemed appropriate somehow (and I don't keep
> > copies, so I don't remember exactly what were the words.
> >
>
> >From the 'continuing to make the point for me' Dept.
>1. But in private, as here, you note that you actually *did* single out my
>post for your harsh reply.
>2. You did not have to quote anything to make your 'annual appeal.'
>3. Losing context for the reply is the *exact* reason to quote the relevant
>part of the original....
><sigh>


(1) By "not single you out" I meant "It wasn't meant to be personal." 
While reading your post it just struck me that it was time to remind everyone.
(1) (a) What do you mean, "harsh"?  I thought I was just posting a 
friendly reminder?
(1) (b) And what do you mean, "pirates"?
(2) Absolutely true. However, the wording of your post made me think 
of a nice segue. I wasn't responding to YOU, just to the words I saw 
on the screen. Don't even know you. Certainly wasn't trying to offend.
(3) I absolutely, positively have no objection whatsoever to "quote 
the relevant part of the original". My objection is always aimed only 
(and solely) at those who just reprint the entire post, including all 
the previous posts that person is replying to, and all the sigs, and 
all the second and third copies of the same sig at the end of each of 
those posts, and all the extraneous "list" paperwork that is appended 
to the messages automatically, etc, etc. (And that's not to say that 
the post I was responding to could be described that way. It was just 
that I could see it coming, yet again.) It really gets tedious wading 
through the same joke over and over, looking for that tidbit of new 
information. (Wait -- isn't that what we like about Groo? Or did I err?)
(4) There is no #4.
(6) There is no #5 either. But there was a #4. It just didn't have 
any purpose.
(7) And I'm certainly not padding MY posts. I never post more than 3 
or 4 times a year anyway.
Rick
Not a Pirate.