>I wonder if I could ask you to include a contextualizing snippet of the old post

I'd prefer not to have to do so in every case.

Track back on the thread (you do have a threaded
newsreader, don't you? I mean, *gosh*, it's 2006 already) and you'll
see plainly what I'm responding to. Though if it were relevant, I'd
include it.

--Blair

Blair P. 1/6/06


>> I wonder if I could ask you to include a contextualizing snippet of the old
>> post
>
> I'd prefer not to have to do so in every case.

It would not be necessary in "every case," but it would be appreciated in
those cases where it is.
>
> Track back on the thread (you do have a threaded
> newsreader, don't you? I mean, *gosh*, it's 2006 already) and you'll
> see plainly what I'm responding to. Though if it were relevant, I'd
> include it.

I do have a threaded newsreader. It is unfair to expect your reader to sift
back through a thread's history to find your referent. At this point, I
agree to disagree with you.

Michael

Threaded views are an eyesore. It is normally used for genesis and
scope of more than one post. It isn't used to verify that someone
simply is or isn't talking to themself.

Jim

Michael Plant wrote:
> Blair P. 1/6/06
>
>
> >> I wonder if I could ask you to include a contextualizing snippet of the old
> >> post
> >
> > I'd prefer not to have to do so in every case.
>
> It would not be necessary in "every case," but it would be appreciated in
> those cases where it is.
> >
> > Track back on the thread (you do have a threaded
> > newsreader, don't you? I mean, *gosh*, it's 2006 already) and you'll
> > see plainly what I'm responding to. Though if it were relevant, I'd
> > include it.
>
> I do have a threaded newsreader. It is unfair to expect your reader to sift
> back through a thread's history to find your referent. At this point, I
> agree to disagree with you.
>
> Michael

"Blair P. Houghton" > writes:

> >I wonder if I could ask you to include a contextualizing snippet of
> >the old post
>
> I'd prefer not to have to do so in every case.
>
> Track back on the thread (you do have a threaded newsreader, don't
> you? I mean, *gosh*, it's 2006 already) and you'll see plainly what
> I'm responding to.

Let's think of it in terms of economics. There's only one of you, and
on the other side we have the (possibly dwindling) multitude of your
readers. You could do the work yourself, or *each* of your readers
could do it. Which way is more efficient?

>Though if it were relevant, I'd include it.

You appear to be a recent convert to Contextualism, brother, but we
welcome all reformed sinners.

/Lew
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

>Let's think of it in terms of economics. There's only one of you, and
on the other side we have the (possibly dwindling) multitude...

That's not economics, it's politics, which indicates that you
either don't understand what you're saying or are dissembling
for a purpose.

>From an economic standpoint, I will quote as little as I desire,
and you will understand as little as you desire. We'll see who
loses the most.

--Blair

"Blair P. Houghton" > writes:

> >Let's think of it in terms of economics. There's only one of you, and
> >on the other side we have the (possibly dwindling) multitude...
>
> That's not economics, it's politics, which indicates that you
> either don't understand what you're saying or are dissembling
> for a purpose.

I was about to reply that my argument was economic because it (the
part you snipped) was about efficiency:

You could do the work yourself, or *each* of your readers could do
it. Which way is more efficient?

But, come to think of it, there *is* a political assumption in there.
I was assuming that the "normal" point of view, the one governing what
is to be optimized in an economic sense, was that of the whole
community following the thread. But of course, in the abstract,
there's nothing to recommend the community's interest as superior to
your own.

> >From an economic standpoint, I will quote as little as I desire,
> and you will understand as little as you desire. We'll see who
> loses the most.

Well, I think we understand each other now.

/Lew
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html