I agree.

 

The blank quotes like above are not doing us any good either -- why do you do that?

 

I think he wants to reply to something I said, but wants to cut down the length of the post so that others don't need to scroll too much.
Others sometimes use this instead:

@iceman: .........

I think both ways work.

I like this way more than some ppl's replys that show a very long post quoted...

But when the user he is replying at had allready posted several times in the thread it might be better to have a real quote, so that everyone knows to which specific post he replys.


Am I right, Don?

 

That's also a situation where outline mode can be very handy.

 

Definitely yes--at times. But, see below.

 

Often when I am posting, I am replying to the immediately preceding post. Doing so leaves a quote box in case someone posts in between--which I would go back and fill in if needed. Sometimes I go back and remove them, and sometimes I don't do so. I wouldn't think they would do much harm, but I'll be happy to do my best to always remove them if it is important. As Ice said, they also are sort of an intro to what is being replied to, but I guess it is clear enough if the reply is right below the replied to.

 

Znod, I still think you are missing an important point...

If you're going to be replying to multiple posts sequentially, you can do it with one post (as Iceman described in post #7). I don't see why you (or anyone) need to post repeatedly (one after another with nobody else's post in between them) like you did in posts #16 & #17. In other words, post #16 could have shown your answer to Iceman (with quoted text) then it could have shown your answer to Lomag (with quoted text). There would have been no reason to tell Iceman to "see below", etc. What this sequential replying does is clutter the thread with repeated copies of a person's signature and, in some people's minds, contributes to the issue of "padding" the post count (as if that really matters...)

Now to be crystal clear, I don't mean that you should go and edit post #16 or #17 hours later and add a new reply, etc. Once someone else jumps in, it's okay to post a new reply further down the thread.

Also, I think the empty quote thing is more confusing than it's worth. Either quote the whole message, quote a portion of the message, or just post a reply if it falls right after the message you're referencing. (In the rare event that someone else jumps in and posts before you have a chance to submit your reply, just go back and add the quote using the edit feature.)

 

Guilty... Will stop from hereafter.

 

Apologies - not aware of the "multiple quote" feature (it works differently in other forums, simply providing you with a quote of a single post). At least my signature is empty...



I will use it from now on.

 

Yes, that was my point in reply to Mark. It was very hard to tell what Mark was saying.


I guess we'll have to disagree on that one. Here is an example of what I am talking about. Why would anyone would be confused by my intention.