Who wants the fascist Krygowski to speak for cyclists?

In article ,
Tim McNamara wrote:

In article ,
Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
Tom Sherman °_° wrote:

On 8/29/2010 8:42 PM, Michael Press wrote:
In ,
Tom Sherman wrote:

On 8/29/2010 2:42 PM, Michael Press wrote:
In ,
Tom Sherman wrote:

On 8/29/2010 1:29 PM, André Jute wrote:
[...]

crickets

A word to the wise. Do not put text i[n] quotation marks that
the quoted person did not write.

Michael Press is surprisingly unaware of the standard convention
of brackets indicating and editorial insertion or deletion.
Therefore, there is nothing dishonest or misleading in what I
did.

You cite a paper and ink rule. This is not paper and ink.

Thanks for letting me know.

We can leave quoted text intact. Exercise this option.

What if the text is both boring and annoying?

As Michael Press is well aware, snipping ALL of Mr. Jute's text in
my reply was the point.

Do not put text in quotation marks that the attributed writer did not
write. To do so is unnecessary, misleading, and not good manners.
That is my point. I only mentioned it after you had done it more than
once.

Using brackets around text is not an indication of quotation.

Why are you telling me that?

Proper
newsreaders and repaired versions of Outlook Express use a quote string,
typically an end-bracket (); the open bracket () should not be used as
a quote string.

Why are you telling me that?


Snipping irrelevant text and putting in a bracketed statement to that
effect is acceptable and traditional Usenet etiquette. Indeed, this is
even considered good practice in order to avoid posts with hundreds of
lines of jute****. Normally snip is used but Tom was being humorous
given the proclivities of his correspondent, Mr. Jute, for being an
unbridled ass.

Changing quoted text is not funny.
Is there one law for the people you
favor, and another for those you do
not favor?

--
Michael Press

Michael Press wrote:
*Tim McNamara wrote:

Snipping irrelevant text and putting in a bracketed statement to that
effect is acceptable and traditional Usenet etiquette. *Indeed, this is
even considered good practice in order to avoid posts with hundreds of
lines of jute****. *Normally snip is used but Tom was being humorous
given the proclivities of his correspondent, Mr. Jute, for being an
unbridled ass.

Changing quoted text is not funny.
Is there one law for the people you
favor, and another for those you do
not favor?

--
Michael Press

Gee, Mikey, did it take till now for you to discover your erstwhile
bumbuddies are disgusting hypocrites?

Andre Jute
At least not a hypocrite

On 9/1/2010 2:15 PM, Michael Press wrote:
In ,
Tom Sherman wrote:

On 8/31/2010 10:09 PM, Michael Press wrote:
[...] [1]
The proper place for that indicator, "[...]"
is in your own text space, not your interlocutor's text space.


Mr. Press's contention is illogical. The indicator that text has been
deleted or modified should be at the place where the deletion or
modification occurred. Putting it where Mr. Press indicates would be
misleading - why would a person trim part of their own response in such
a manner?

[1] For André Jute, this is NOT a quote.

Observe how your foot note marker and your
footnote are at different levels of quotation.

Well, duh.

Do not lecture me about logic.

Request noted, but not necessarily followed,

Excision of quoted text is indicated in
the editor's text space, not in the
quoted writer's text space.

And the editor's text space is indicated by brackets, no? rhetorical
question

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

In article ,
Tom Sherman °_° wrote:

On 9/1/2010 2:15 PM, Michael Press wrote:
In ,
Tom Sherman wrote:

On 8/31/2010 10:09 PM, Michael Press wrote:
[...] [1]
The proper place for that indicator, "[...]"
is in your own text space, not your interlocutor's text space.


Mr. Press's contention is illogical. The indicator that text has been
deleted or modified should be at the place where the deletion or
modification occurred. Putting it where Mr. Press indicates would be
misleading - why would a person trim part of their own response in such
a manner?

[1] For André Jute, this is NOT a quote.

Observe how your foot note marker and your
footnote are at different levels of quotation.

Well, duh.

Do not lecture me about logic.

Request noted, but not necessarily followed,

A lecture in logic for you.
Footnote marker and footnote belong at the same quotation level.


Excision of quoted text is indicated in
the editor's text space, not in the
quoted writer's text space.

And the editor's text space is indicated by brackets, no? rhetorical
question

No. People us square brackets in their own text.
That is the great problem of quoting. The quoted
writer may use any string he wants. Where multiple
levels of quoting manifest the problem compounds.
Fortunately we have an easy solution in email and
usenet dialogues: the responder does not put his
own text in the quotation.

--
Michael Press