|
| On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 19:52:44 -0400, JohnM <eaotis@cbpu.com> wrote:
quote:
>Cliff wrote:
>
>You go back and look at the thread where we disagreed over the atomic
>bombing of the Japanese cities and you'll see where I accused you of
>cutting what I said, resulting in an altered context.
Not going to go search but I'm certain that I altered nothing
in what I quoted.
It could well be that what I quoted showed your general attitude
rather well though <G>.
quote:
>
>I find your few, well placed words to often sound like you haven't
>thought of anything constructive. "Winger!, WMD's!", etc. Maybe the
>readers you prefer need it kept simple?
Like many of the wingers? Perhaps so. Even than, many
still don't get it, or so it seems. Look at poor Gunner ..
Much, if not all, of such has been coverd so many times
before and they well know it (or should).
I see no need to endlessly repeat the same longish
replies laden with facts & reasoning or redo any prior
research.
quote:
>
>I don't believe that to be a safe assumption.
Better than always quoting the entire thing IMHO.
quote:
>You go through a thread on
>a day and you see the posts between then and the last time you looked.
>There may be responses to something you read three days ago, twenty
>lines up the thread. There's usually a middle ground between giving
>enough information about what you're responding to that you're showing
>consideration for your readers and cutting enough to not waste people's
>time. Myself, I prefer to err on the side of too much information.
I'll stick with brevity, usually <G>>
--
Cliff
|
|