"Chris Colohan" wrote

In any case, on usenet it is often considered polite to quote from
previous messages to give some context. The main reason for this has
nothing to do with the fact that some of us use non-threaded
newsreaders---instead, it is because it takes time for messages to be
sent between computers. Depending on where you are reading from, the
messages in a newsgroup may arrive in a different order. Without a
little quote to put a message in context, this can cause confusion.

I totally agree, about quoting some of the text, and when it makes sense,
the author- as I did in this reply. It really is not hard.

The only reason I do not sometimes quote the most recent author to which I
am replying, is when I want to quote two authors, or two posts back, then I
leave out both of the authors. I think it reduces the chances that someone
will think that you are attributing someone else's words to them.

In my case, (with OE) it is unsure for me to determine who someone is
responding to, because I keep a hefty kill-file. I just do not want to
waste my time reading some nutcases.

In that case, the kill-filed person does not show up in the thread headers
at all, and it almost looks like it is a response to someone earlier in the
thread.

So for many reason, it stands that it is polite to quote some of the person
that you are responding to. It is just as bad to quote all of the post,
along with several other's posts before that.
--
Jim in NC