Might I suggest that when a post offends us, we first utilize the PM function to the author to state our objection in friendly language? Nobody likes to be publicly chastised when their taste or humor unintentionally offends others and there's a good chance we end up with stink bug infestations like that just obliterated by the Vice-Pope. If that doesn't work, the other wise option is using the Report button function and get a mod involved to either delete or mediate as necessary. We might thus avoid initiating near-inevitable spats and loss of comity

I'd suggest this different approach is a good thing.

OH JUST SHUT UP!
















j/k

Judicious use of the IGNORE button may also help some personal sensibilities (such as mine).

I know you are but what am i?

The Assistant Pope has issued an edict. I'm acknowledging that I've read it and will abide. I apologize for not using the report button and allowing the mods to deal with my concern in private.

I hate it when I have to sit in traffic behind an accident scene and by the time I get there everything is cleared away.

Where can this edict be found?

So what the hell got your feathers all in a fluff?

Pappy is still smarting from the disrespectful way Orly was treated today in Indiana.

I don't think it's too much to ask peeps to trim de quotes.

^^^^THIS

This isn't a new thing. I've been saying this for a long time.

I was reading the thread on my cell phone, and I realized I had just read PatGund's post six times in seven posts.

To me, that disrupts the flow and distracts me from the discussion and makes reading the forum damned clunky. Just a suggestion.

And, for that matter, a GOOD suggestion.

Just saying. Too. Also.

There is some other thing behind it.

What I mean is that it seems he was pre pissed way before his comment.

Foggy is sick. He is still suffering from the GB syndrome. He throws up 3 nights a week.

And he's right. There is no reason to quote a whole long post when just a part of it will do.

I heard the message but was irritated by the tone of the whole thing.

But then isn't it the poster who makes the decision as to how much back data is put in the new post? Some folks when they are in a 30 page thread trying to comment on something on page 15 - you have to make a judgement call as to how much info is carried over. This is especially important when the whole "subject" tack, vision etc has changed in the thread but needs to come back....

You have no idea how often others feel about some posts. But we don't feel the need to express it each and every time. (that might be a hint.)

Just truncate the damned quotes already.

And yeah, use your best judgement as to how much.

And, if after a couple dozen people quote the same stuff, and a moderator mentions it, just frickin' pay attention and do it. Especially if it's their forum. And instead of whining about it, maybe say "sorry, I'll try to be more cognizant", or something along those lines rather than whining about "the tone".

Just stop already.

Calm down....

I am complying, but I do have an opinion like everyone else on this board Mimi.
I do know that I can bring up my opinion, but you don't have to listen to it.
Thanks.

Yes, but part of that is choosing wisely what is needed and what isn't under what circumstances.



You're really talking oranges and tangerines here. Foggy's complaint was about a situation where an original post was made and multiple replies to that post - ALL WITHIN A PAGE OF IT'S POSTING - contained most or all of the original text. Basic common sense tells you that if you're posting a reply that you know will appear within just a few pages of the post you're commenting on, you don't need to quote nearly as much for context as you do when there's going to be a 15 page gap, as in your example.