On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:53:29 -0500, Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 3/10/12, Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Seriously, though, I think Andrej sometimes quotes *nothing* (no offense
>> for picking on you Andrej), and couple that with the newsgroup's seemingly
>> random decision to start a new thread, or put a reply at the same level, I
>> sometimes have no idea what he's talking about :)
>
> LOL. I was honestly wondering if this was an issue or not. I blame the
> gmail quick-reply box. It has two options: quote everything, or quote
> nothing. Otherwise there's a full reply button and then I can quickly
> select a piece of text to quote. But I *thought* that by using quick
> reply without fully quoting it would mean my reply would sit right
> next to the last poster's reply.

I think it does, actually.  It's just the post you are responding to isn't always the last poster :D

> I'm just used to using forum software and when I do a quick-reply
> there my post is right below the last user's post, and it's easy to
> figure out who I'm replying to.

The forum software does not by default thread discussions, but my newsreader does.

> Anyway, I'll stop posting replies to the void. :p (thanks for letting
> me know btw)

I hope you realize I didn't mean it in a bad/condescending way :)  I realize we all use software that sometimes doesn't do the right thing, and it's not always our fault for liking some shitty software.

But whose fault is it?  Yours for using a forum-like software, or mine for trying to thread the newsgroup?  If a tree posts a reply in the wrong thread, and the forest doesn't use threading readers, does anyone care?

-Steve

On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:58:37 -0500, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 07:24:34PM -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> Seriously, though, I think Andrej sometimes quotes *nothing* (no
>> offense for picking on you Andrej), and couple that with the
>> newsgroup's seemingly random decision to start a new thread, or put
>> a reply at the same level, I sometimes have no idea what he's
>> talking about :)
> [...]
>
> You guys should just use a threading mail reader. Like mutt. :-P :-P
> (Though Ary's post didn't make sense to me either, because I'd deleted
> the parent post already. Ah well. The joys of impersonal online
> communication...)

You should not delete old posts :)  I find it invaluable for searching for old discussions sometimes (I use opera with google-like searching).

-Steve

On 3/10/12, Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I hope you realize I didn't mean it in a bad/condescending way :)

No problemo! I don't take things too seriously around this place (or
the internets in general).

> But whose fault is it?

I'd say it's the technology's fault. A newsgroup seems to be the equivalent of a source file, but with each person having a compiler with different semantics. Related: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fc1P-AEaEp8

On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 08:07:47PM -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:58:37 -0500, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> 
> >On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 07:24:34PM -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> >>Seriously, though, I think Andrej sometimes quotes *nothing* (no offense for picking on you Andrej), and couple that with the newsgroup's seemingly random decision to start a new thread, or put a reply at the same level, I sometimes have no idea what he's talking about :)
> >[...]
> >
> >You guys should just use a threading mail reader. Like mutt. :-P :-P (Though Ary's post didn't make sense to me either, because I'd deleted the parent post already. Ah well. The joys of impersonal online communication...)
> 
> You should not delete old posts :)  I find it invaluable for searching
> for old discussions sometimes (I use opera with google-like
> searching).
[...]

While I agree with you on principle, after having accumulated YEARS of archives for several high-volume mailing lists in the past I'm starting to doubt the value of doing it. Sometimes the signal-to-noise ratio is just too low to justify archiving *everything*. So I usually only save threads that I find interesting and has lasting value and delete the rest (esp. since there's an online archive for it anyway).


T

-- 
In a world without fences, who needs Windows and Gates? -- Christian Surchi

On 3/9/12 4:24 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:05:00 -0500, Ary Manzana <ary@esperanto.org.ar>
> wrote:
>
>> What are you talking about?
>
> Who are you talking to?
>
> :)
>
> Seriously, though, I think Andrej sometimes quotes *nothing* (no offense
> for picking on you Andrej), and couple that with the newsgroup's
> seemingly random decision to start a new thread, or put a reply at the
> same level, I sometimes have no idea what he's talking about :)

There are extremes, of course. I, for one, take pains to make sure I quote about the "right" amount of context. I know it's time well spent because every second I save for one reader is multiplied by many of them. I think it's very jarring to see a 300-line discussion quoted and followed by a brief answer. If that much context is necessary, I'd have no business reading that message unless I actually followed the conversation.

Andrei

On 2012-03-10 00:23, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> P.S. Please don't overquote, you systematically do so. Thanks!

I'll try to think about that.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg