WOW! This post was booted out of general discussion faster that I could turn around and blink.
This was not a 'technical question' by any reach of the imagination.
It was a 2 part post, the first part asked a question about the PHILOSOPHY behind the format.
The second part asked for MEMBERS OPINION, regarding whether or not they'd like to see that feature added (re-added) to the board.
It had already elicited several responses disscussing the merits of such a feature AND opinions regarding whether or not people would like to see the feature on this board.
Oh well, now I guess the topic is regulated into the obscurity of the 'technical support' section.
March 14, 2003, 02:00 PM
Most of what I saw from quotes on TFL was to ram the poster's words back down his throat.
Personally, I try very hard to only say what I actually mean.
Perhaps you have a problem saying things you later wish to retract? If that's the case, dwell longer upon what it is you ACTUALLY want to say AND how you REALLY wish to express it.
March 14, 2003, 05:30 PM
You took the quote out of context.
Go to dictionary. Look up "most."
March 14, 2003, 06:34 PM
Bottom line, this isn't a democracy. :)
March 14, 2003, 09:27 PM
What bothers me more than any issues surrounding the use/abuse of quote features is the AVERAGE persons UTTER inability to do any kind of appropriate/accurate textual analysis.
Topgun, in NO way did I "take your quote out of contect." Note, that I posed a hypothetical, rhetorical question... alluding to one possible reason why you seem to be adamatly opposed to quote features. I then went on to pose a excellent solution, if that was indeed your objection/problem, on how one could take corrective action -- so that words are not 'rammed down throats" at a later date.
*HINT* look at the modifiers/qualifiers of the sentences I wrote.
It is blantantly obvious that I NEVER said that YOU, youself, had that specific problem.
Oh yes, regarding THR not being a democracy.... true enough. Nor is it fair and balanced in how Moderators apply the 'rules.'
I can go to the general discussion forum RIGHT NOW and find more than few threads that are most decidedly NOT about firearms e.g. Dixie Chicks, the coming war in Iraq, et ctera.
The moderators leave a vast majority of these threads alone, unmolested -- and they are obviously off topic.
But I am not such a gullible idealist that I think THR (or any internet forum) is ever going to be fair, balanced, non-hypocritical, et cetera.
But be aware, by YOUR actions you illustrate that you do not take 'the high road,' rather you show your true character, one that seems to be akin to a petty tyrant -- one who apparently relishes in the fact they can apply arbitrary draconion measures within their little realm of power.
For the textually challanged, note that I did not actually call ANYBODY a petty tyrant, read the qualifiers/modifiers.
I don't do :banghead: nor do I do :cuss: or :what: at most I do :rolleyes: and walk away confident that my general outlook on life has once again been reaffirmed.
bty, thanks for the democracy taunt
March 14, 2003, 10:42 PM
Veritas - Nice rant.
What was your question/point again?
March 14, 2003, 10:48 PM
The people who own and moderate these servers disabled the quote feature simply because people were quoting entire posts and adding very few lines to what had been said. In essence, it was a huge waste of disk space, the way it was being used. While I DO like and use the quote feature on other webboards I use, I can understand the moderator's positions here. After all, every network/server administrator MUST carefully watch their availible disk space, because if they run out, then you'll see the internet version of the SHTF scenerio.
Sorry to rant.....
March 15, 2003, 02:38 AM
Originally posted by Veritas:
Why no quote feature on this forum like over at GT?
Wow, quotes. Amazing.
March 15, 2003, 04:31 AM
MitchSchaft: a classic example of why I want to stop paying for public education -- perhaps refunds are in order.
Let's start at the top, and apply basic textual analysis to the sentence you quoted.
Main clause: "Why no quote feature on this forum?"
Subordinate clause: "like over at GT."
The subordinate clause MODIFIES the main clause.
Or, in other words ... a subordinate clause can either change or modify the meaning of a main clause.
Ergo, the question was NOT "why do you have the quote feature that you presently use?" Rather it was really "Why do you not have a quote feature like they use over at Glock Talk?"
Yes, some people abuse quote features, which I guess really annoys the Moderators, and thus THR has the lame-o quote system that it presently uses -- Sua cuique sunt vitia.
But I reiterate, worse than quote feature abusers are individuals who CANNOT COMPREHEND WHAT WAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN. They must see the words, I assume. They probably even understand what ALL the words mean ... individually. Unfortunately, when the words are all used together, in a real honest-to-God English sentence :rolleyes:
Erudite is not an insult: it's a goal.
March 15, 2003, 09:34 AM
In addition, you have the option of using [i], [b], or [blockquote] (a neat thingy that translates directly to <blockquote> that I put in and never documented because I was sick of the quote header and <hr> wasting vertical space).
Veritas, my condolences that some quotes are taken out of context. I fail to see how a "reply to post" button fixes that. Rather than immediately posting a reply that mis-quotes a section of a prior post, the miscreants (if they exist, let's not get into that) would just reply-to, whining about the section of the quote they're concerned about. Then the original poster would explain why the analysis was wrong. The misquoter might then proceed to cut-n-paste the "relevant" section of the quote, out of context, in yet another post.
I think your proposal could be the worst of both worlds.
March 15, 2003, 02:24 PM
My point was, stop being lazy and use the quotes the way I did and tyme explained. I see you like to waste time/energy by arguing ridiculous topics. With all this energy that you seem to have it should not be hard for you to take the time to copy/paste some text and add other vB code to make it appear that there is such a feature enabled.
March 15, 2003, 05:08 PM
While you are obviously proud of your language skills -- perhaps justifiably, though that remains to be seen -- I don't find your method of discussion very honest. Anyone as intelligent as you apparently believe yourself to be should be able to make his points without stooping to implied insults and offensive statements.
It is no surprise that someone with a command of the language is able to cause others to take offense without quite saying what he knows others will take him to mean, though I have always wondered why anyone would find joy in playing games of that sort.
Indeed, everyone does have their own vices.
Oh, the quote feature? It's not going to be enabled. Your original question has been answered quite adequately not only in this thread, but also in the two previous threads to which Mal H so graciously provided a link.
Probitas laudatur et alget. -- Juvenal
March 15, 2003, 07:13 PM
Veritas simplex oratio est.
Quisquis veritatem recipiet bene educabitur.
Etiam senes fructibus sapientiae et consiliis argumentisque certis saepe carent.
March 15, 2003, 07:38 PM
To show how observant I am, other than the cut-n-paste quote, I didn't even know there was another method possible until someone on TFL started complaining about it being blocked.
I know the reasoning behind not having it and just don't see where it's absence is all that much of a problem. Just use the codes and don't worry about it.
March 15, 2003, 08:18 PM
Actually, I'm glad that the quote feature is not available. Not everyone has the good sense to prune their replies, and it ends up increasing redundant posts.
What I suggest though, is the place where the quote button used to be, be replaced with a post button. That way, when I respond to another's post, and I have already cut/copied the text into my clipboard, I do not need to scroll all the way down to post. Plus, after posting, I can hit 'back' on my browser, and get back to where I was in the middle of the thread.
March 15, 2003, 08:25 PM
Boy, I'm glad there's an assault weapon ban in place. Some people can't control themselves, and nobody should have them.
Boy, I'm glad that there's a ban on standard capacity magazines - some people use them in crimes, so no one should.
Just an example of extremes. Instead of taking action against offenders, nobody has the ability.
March 15, 2003, 09:13 PM
I can see your parallel with the assault weapon and standard capacity magazine ban, but these are laws passed in face of the 2nd Amendment.
A 'quote' button, and THR's continued presence is totally at the convenience of the hosts. And they have spoken about their rationale as to the absence of the 'quote' button.
If they had said that they don't like the 'quote' button because they don't like 5 letter words beginning with 'Q', then that is the end of discussion.
The presence or absence of the 'quote' button is not even in the same class as gun control laws.
March 15, 2003, 10:09 PM
Darn, I thought I had the absolute right to use the quote feature, lol.
March 15, 2003, 10:25 PM
I have never found the language of truth to be that simple -- have you, really? Most people don't speak it. At least, not as a native tongue. Which, in turn, is why so few are well educated: they don't speak the language of truth.
Vive, vale. Didn't Spock say that? ;)
The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple. -- Oscar Wilde
March 15, 2003, 11:10 PM
Just thought I'd introduce a humorous parrallel. In our efforts to try to provide a community, let's not allow ourselves to fall victim to the mindset we battle against.
March 16, 2003, 03:20 AM
Spark, that's not a parallel. That's more of a zig-zag in the manner of the "magic bullet" theory. There's no "quote this entire post" feature at THR because the mods, and ultimately Oleg, don't want it here. If lack of "quote this entire post" had any chilling effect on open discussion at all, I bet most mods, and Oleg, would be for the "feature" and so would be virtually everyone else.
You sound like someone who thinks spam is free speech. If you ask me, spam is doing a fairly good job of disrupting, or at least making life very annoying for quite a number of people who receive spam while directly engaged in, interstate commerce. Sounds like a clear case for Federal intervention to me. :)
That was only 30% in jest. If we have a government, it should be doing something useful. If a mandatory spam tag stops 50% of spam because the spammers don't want to go to jail (right now about the worst that can happen is that they can get sued) and people can reliably filter that 50% of spam without filtering any potentially important email, that's a terrific use of the Interstate Commerce Clause.
You don't really want to continue arguing this quote issue with someone who wants the government to regulate spam, do you? :)
March 16, 2003, 05:42 PM
So, people who use the quote button are spammers? And you find my logic lacking? :rolleyes:
The point I am trying to make here is that given the moderators already evident willingness to edit posts as needed, why take away a feature that is useful and punishing the large majority, instead of taking action against the few who do abuse the priviledge?
March 16, 2003, 06:54 PM
Why can't you copy/paste somebody's entire post if it's that big of a deal for you?:scrutiny:
March 16, 2003, 07:00 PM
Actually, I do just that, it's just that it requires multiple edits because when pasted, all sorts of line breaks are inserted, leaving some really ugly formatting. You know, posts where the text wraps in odd ways and such.
Whereas, with the reply with quote feature, all the formatting is good to go already, and the only copy & pasting I need to do is if I'm going to break up a long passage of text to reply to specific points.
Just my two cents again.
March 16, 2003, 07:01 PM
There's no need for someone to run a poll to see if in fact the "large majority" feel punished since it would serve no purpose other than to further upset any that do, but I suspect that assessment is wrong.
The point was that they are both non-examples of free speech.
If you enjoyed reading about "Why no "quote" feature at THR?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!