I'm BACK

[1FASTLASER]

Hey folks. Finally getting back to mormal or as normal as I can get. Witht he truck tranny blowing up and the move and all been real busy. Glad to see ya all.

[JB]

Welcome back laser, have ya had time to fish any?

[pig n jig]

Welcome back Laser. P N J

[JB]

pnj, ya figured out "mormal as normal" yet?
that an'it right ....lord forgive me and all the pigmies in new Guinea lol

[rrw4258]

welcome back dude and get out there and catch some hawgs!!!

rrw4258
(Ryan)

[crankybait]

welcome back laser!

[bassking22]

Welcome back

[zooker]

he told me last night that he aint wet a line in 3 weeks. it will be a while affore he gets it wet again-month maybe more-

zooker

[Rebbasser]

Glad to see you back, buddy!

[JB]

Guess who's back
Back again
Lasers back
Tell a friend
Guess who's back, guess who's back, guess who's back, guess who's back
guess who's back, guess who's back, guess who's back..

[crankybait]

On July 24th, 2006, JB said this at 7:24 AM
"Guess who's back
Back again
Lasers back
Tell a friend"

in response:

tupac>eminem anyday

[bassintom]

welcome back laser..it was awful quiet around here without you..
was that necessary stinky?

[1FASTLASER]

LOL dont know what stinky said.....hell Icant read giberish

[crankybait]

JB's post was from an eminem song. i really do not like eminem. i find tupac to be greater. > is the greater than sign. my post pretty said that tupac was greater than eminem. not necessary... but i dont think its detrimental to the topic. ill delete it if you want.

[JB]

cranky,
being used to seeing the greater than > symbol from time to time, I feel a rant comming on and pinpointing it in your direction..

One of the most annoying features of many Bassfishin' posts messages which I have seen recently has been the apparent inability or unwillingness of many people to properly and appropriately quote the text of previous messages in their replies and followups. The consequences of poor quoting practice are not only annoying, but are often downright wasteful of other peoples' time and bandwidth.
Unfortunately, this situation is not helped by much of the software which is commonly in use and which tends to discourage proper quoting practice.
Typically, when responding to a particular forum post, one might want to include a portion of the previous message in order to make clear the text to which he is responding. This can be particularly important in bassfishin posts, since different posts tend to arrive at different sites at different times, and often in a nonsequential order. As a result, it is necessary to give some context for the reader to interpret the followup comment, since the original article might not have arrived at his site yet. Similarly, in email, it is useful to provide some context to the reply in order to allow the recipient to quickly remember what he had said in the earlier message to which someone is replying.


Quoting is thus usually indicated by some sort of attribution line (that says something like "On January 16, 2001, Jon Doe wrote..."), followed by the original text indented with the ">" (greater-than) symbol preceding each line. In Usenet communications, the Message-ID of the earlier post is often included as well. This helps the reader to quickly determine two things: who wrote the original text, and which of the lines in the response are a quotation from the original message and which ones are new text not in the original.
As can be seen above, I would have deleted all the original text from the earlier message, with the exception of the line to which I am responding, and have added my new text underneath it, as if in a standard question-and-answer format. The attribution line would have been added automatically by my mail client (which, in my case, is Pine). If there had been several points and I had wanted to reply to each one individually, I would have interspersed my comments with the original ones, trimming out any unnecessary lines, and placing my comments below the originals, and adding white space (blank lines) between them.
In any case, it can be seen clearly that this type of quoting practice, which essentially involves editing the original message to include only the lines to which the sender is replying (but not editing the content, of course) and then leaving some white space and adding the reply below the original text, makes logical sense, and the question and answer format flows as one would expect.
> blah stuff words words words words words
more words more stuff more blah blahblah blah

As should be obvious from the above examples, quoting the entire original message below the original message is totally ludicrous for several reasons:
First, it is confusing--it isn't clear exactly what Some One is responding to. It's probably one of the lines in the original message, but, because the response is placed at the top and the entire original message is quoted below, the response is fairly difficult to comprehend. Not only is the entire original message quoted, but the response is placed above it, resulting in something that does not "read" properly from top to bottom.
Second, quoting the entire original message wastes peoples' time; if Someone Else wanted to refresh himself on what Some One wants to do, he would have to re-read the entire original message, which would be a real waste of time. This both annoys the recipient and sends the message that the sender doesn't value the recipient's time highly enough to trim out the extra junk.
Finally, quoting the entire original message (whether above or below the response) is a horrible waste of bandwidth, particularly if an exchange takes place over time between two people who both use abusive quoting practices, and several old messages are appended to each of the subsequent messages. If everyone were to suddenly begin using this sort of practice, the volume of mail that has to be handled would instantaneously increase to more than double its original size, increasing costs for everyone who wanted to send or receive email.
See above--replying at the top and quoting the entire original message is illogical, confusing, insulting to the recipient, and a waste of bandwidth. Trimming the original message down to the relevant sections and including the replies underneath the relevant sections of the original text is much more logical, easier to read, more respectful of the recipient, and less likely to cause confusion at a later date.
HOPE THAT HELPS

[bassthumb32]

welome back good buddy.

[Captmikestarrett]

Originally Posted by JB

cranky,
being used to seeing the greater than > symbol from time to time, I feel a rant comming on and pinpointing it in your direction..

One of the most annoying features of many Bassfishin' posts messages which I have seen recently has been the apparent inability or unwillingness of many people to properly and appropriately quote the text of previous messages in their replies and followups. The consequences of poor quoting practice are not only annoying, but are often downright wasteful of other peoples' time and bandwidth.
Unfortunately, this situation is not helped by much of the software which is commonly in use and which tends to discourage proper quoting practice.
Typically, when responding to a particular forum post, one might want to include a portion of the previous message in order to make clear the text to which he is responding. This can be particularly important in bassfishin posts, since different posts tend to arrive at different sites at different times, and often in a nonsequential order. As a result, it is necessary to give some context for the reader to interpret the followup comment, since the original article might not have arrived at his site yet. Similarly, in email, it is useful to provide some context to the reply in order to allow the recipient to quickly remember what he had said in the earlier message to which someone is replying.


Quoting is thus usually indicated by some sort of attribution line (that says something like "On January 16, 2001, Jon Doe wrote..."), followed by the original text indented with the ">" (greater-than) symbol preceding each line. In Usenet communications, the Message-ID of the earlier post is often included as well. This helps the reader to quickly determine two things: who wrote the original text, and which of the lines in the response are a quotation from the original message and which ones are new text not in the original.
As can be seen above, I would have deleted all the original text from the earlier message, with the exception of the line to which I am responding, and have added my new text underneath it, as if in a standard question-and-answer format. The attribution line would have been added automatically by my mail client (which, in my case, is Pine). If there had been several points and I had wanted to reply to each one individually, I would have interspersed my comments with the original ones, trimming out any unnecessary lines, and placing my comments below the originals, and adding white space (blank lines) between them.
In any case, it can be seen clearly that this type of quoting practice, which essentially involves editing the original message to include only the lines to which the sender is replying (but not editing the content, of course) and then leaving some white space and adding the reply below the original text, makes logical sense, and the question and answer format flows as one would expect.
> blah stuff words words words words words
more words more stuff more blah blahblah blah

As should be obvious from the above examples, quoting the entire original message below the original message is totally ludicrous for several reasons:
First, it is confusing--it isn't clear exactly what Some One is responding to. It's probably one of the lines in the original message, but, because the response is placed at the top and the entire original message is quoted below, the response is fairly difficult to comprehend. Not only is the entire original message quoted, but the response is placed above it, resulting in something that does not "read" properly from top to bottom.
Second, quoting the entire original message wastes peoples' time; if Someone Else wanted to refresh himself on what Some One wants to do, he would have to re-read the entire original message, which would be a real waste of time. This both annoys the recipient and sends the message that the sender doesn't value the recipient's time highly enough to trim out the extra junk.
Finally, quoting the entire original message (whether above or below the response) is a horrible waste of bandwidth, particularly if an exchange takes place over time between two people who both use abusive quoting practices, and several old messages are appended to each of the subsequent messages. If everyone were to suddenly begin using this sort of practice, the volume of mail that has to be handled would instantaneously increase to more than double its original size, increasing costs for everyone who wanted to send or receive email.
See above--replying at the top and quoting the entire original message is illogical, confusing, insulting to the recipient, and a waste of bandwidth. Trimming the original message down to the relevant sections and including the replies underneath the relevant sections of the original text is much more logical, easier to read, more respectful of the recipient, and less likely to cause confusion at a later date.
HOPE THAT HELPS

I think he broke the twenty line rule so I did not read this.. But I did quote it...

Capt Mike

[Rebbasser]

tupac>eminem anyday

two packs better than an enima any day? I reckon so !

[lizardsrule]

Welcome back Laser. Hope life hasn't been beating ya down too much. Just get out of Arkieslaw all together, and move to Florida, the Bass are bigger rotfl.

Lizards

[flfireman]

Glad to see you back Laser.

[Rodman_Rob]

Originally Posted by Rebbasser

two packs better than an enima any day? I reckon so !

I don't smoke, but I agree, I'd rather smoke 2 packs a day than have an enema.

[ILfishinman]

welcome back!

[Fish2win]

Wow Laser you sure got things stirred up.m Its a good thinmg you didnt say something about soemones momma. Welcome Back. Fish2win

[omahabasser]

Originally Posted by Fish2win

Its a good thinmg you didnt say something about soemones momma.

What you sa about my mamma?

Welcome back

[WTL]

Cranky, who the hell cares about Tupac or Eminem? They are both no talent media creations.

Welcome back Lazer! We need your mature bass fishing sensibilities with the surplus of youngsters on board.