Zen and the Art of the Internet

Go to the Table of Contents. Visit Gifcom

When following up to an article, many newsreaders provide the facility
to quote the original article with each line prefixed by >
, as in
In article <1232@foo.bar.com>, sharon@foo.bar.com wrote:
> I agree, I think that basketweaving's really catching on,
> particularly in Pennsylvania.  Here's a list of every person
> in PA that currently engages in it publicly:
               line ... etc ...
This is a severe example (potentially a horribly long article), but
proves a point.  When you quote another person, edit out whatever
isn't directly applicable to your reply. {But not  changing their
words, of course. } This gives the reader of the new article a better
idea of what points you were addressing.  By including the entire
article, you'll only annoy those reading it.  Also, signatures in the
original aren't necessary; the readers already know who wrote it (by
the attribution).
Avoid being tedious with responses---rather than pick apart an
article, address it in parts or as a whole.  Addressing practically
each and every word in an article only proves that the person
responding has absolutely nothing better to do with his time.
If a ``war'' starts (insults and personal comments get thrown back
and forth), take it into email---exchange email with the person
you're arguing with.  No one enjoys watching people bicker