"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:42:48 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
dhenriques@noware .net wrote in
t::

Your quote was incorrect as I have stated. You attritubed the entire
statement to me, which is incorrect.

Fortunately, that is not true.

Under your heading "Dudley Henriques said", you include the entire
McNichol
quote, then my two word response "Forget it."

With all due respect, here is the follow-up article you, Dudley
Henriques, posted:

From: "Dudley Henriques" dhenriques@noware .net
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: CFI without commercial?
Message-ID: t
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 23:22:57 GMT

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
.net...

"Dudley Henriques" dhenriques@noware .net wrote in message
. net...

Might I suggest you try attaching something once in a while to
indicate
you mean humor. It's allowed in the response you
know......Usenet
protocol and all that :-)) See what I mean? Doesn't hurt a
bit!!


I don't use smilies. If you have to tell your audience when to
laugh your humor has missed the mark.

Forget it.

If one notes the attribution lines ('wrote in') and the nested indents
(''), it's quite clear, that you, Dudley Henriques, posted a two word
follow-up to McNicoll's two sentences, and that you included
McNicoll's two sentences in that follow-up article.

Please do not include what other people say leading up to a response, then
add the response under a single heading.

Above you, Dudley Henriques, accuses Montblack of what you in fact did
in your own follow-up article. Ironic. You included text you wrote,
McNicoll's response, and finally your two word response to that.

Such nested attributions are exceedingly ubiquitous in Usenet
follow-up articles. The included text provides a context for the
statement(s) made in the follow-up article(s).

This is a Usenet 101 no no,

Including attributed text in follow-up articles with nested indents is
not a 'no no.' It is a common, but perhaps cumbersome, and even
confusing mechanism for the Usenet naive, that provides context.

and I personally don't like what Steven McNichol says being attributed
to me at ANY time!.
Dudley Henriques

I feel your pain. :-) But, because that didn't happen, you should be
happy.

What Montblack did was omit the attribution line indicating that
McNicoll said the part behind the double indent marks (). However,
it is still quite clear to an experienced Usenet reader, that
Montblack did not attribute McNicoll's statement to you, Dudley
Henriques, by virtue of the nested double indent marks (). Despite
Montblack's omission of McNicoll's attribution line, Montblack's
attribution was correct in indicating that you, Dudley Henriques, had
included McNicoll's text in your article, and thus had 'said' what
McNicoll said by quoting him.

So I think the lesson here is to include the necessary _attribution_
-lines_ as well as the indent marks when including text from a
previous article.

(Please don't flame me for attempting to explain the precise nature of
the complaint and my deliberate use of antecedents to overcome pronoun
ambiguity.)

I'm not going to flame you, and I'm aware of the indents.
The problem is that many of the people who read Usenet never get into these
things this deeply and only react to the words printed in front of them on
the screen. Although you might be technically correct in what you are
saying, to include statements made by two people from different posts under
one heading that plainly mentions just one of the quoted people by name, and
then going pedantic with a highly detailed explanation and justification
because double indents were used is ducking the issue.
You can be technically correct and win the battle on the technically correct
issue, but lose the war on the INTENT issue.
If you're intent is to be a lawyer, you are correct. If your intent is
common sense, and the reality of the actual impression this procedure leaves
on people, then you are in no way serving the intent, which is to CLARIFY.
Personally, I avoid people who will take statements from TWO people and
place them together under a heading that plainly gives the impression that
what was said was said by one person mentioned by name in the heading.
Let me put it this way. You can be technically right. Montblank can be
technically right. But I will avoid both of you in any post I make on Usenet
because you are playing games with my name under a pedantic litany of
technicality that involves something I believe the average reader would miss
when reading something attributed to me that I did not say.
It's THAT simple!
In my opinion, if indents are to be used to separate two individuals in a
quoted text involving both individuals, BOTH people should be named in the
"said" heading; not one. This being done, the indents then serve their
useful purpose as a separator. Naming only one individual, then using a
double indent that can easily be missed is both misleading and disingenuous.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)