[Topgun]

I see a floating thread that gives instructions for using quotes.

It seems to me that the fewer there are, the more interesting the thread is.

I see more "quotes" being used to shove words down other posters' throats than making any decent argument or contrasting point of view.

Quoting an outside source is a legitimate debate technique, but it seems to me that there are far more quotes being used to alter context of the original position.

If you can't think of a point of logic to refute or support a previous post, the quote is a sad substitute.

..........................................................

Flame away. Use quotes.
..........................................................

:)

[citizen]

Oftimes, a quote IS a point of logic.

[Skunkabilly]

I see a floating thread that gives instructions for using quotes.

It seems to me that the fewer there are, the more interesting the thread is.

I see more "quotes" being used to shove words down other posters' throats than making any decent argument or contrasting point of view.

Quoting an outside source is a legitimate debate technique, but it seems to me that there are far more quotes being used to alter context of the original position.

If you can't think of a point of logic to refute or support a previous post, the quote is a sad substitute.

Oh yeah?

:D

[Mike Irwin]

"I see more "quotes" being used to shove words down other posters' throats than making any decent argument or contrasting point of view."

There's certainly that.

But there's also a correlary thought...

That in a quickly evolving discussion, quoting becomes more and more necessary to maintain a cohesive track, especially if one poster is addressing a particular segment of another poster's message, and not the whole post.

Such as I've done above.

[Carlos Cabeza]

Who you callin' weak minded ? :neener:

Well illustrated Mike. See how Mike does it ........He makes it look easy. :)

[Malone LaVeigh]

Can I quote you on that?

[Steve Smith]

Very nice, but you're OT.