Re: BOLO pervert cyclist

Am 09.09.2024 um 16:50 schrieb Catrike Ryder:

On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 10:21:24 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
 

On 9/9/2024 6:40 AM, John B. wrote:

On Mon, 09 Sep 2024 06:11:33 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

[...]

By the way, editing a post before you reply to it is dishonest and
cowardly, but you being who and what you are, I'll let you get away
with it this time.

>
Has Frankie now stooped to editing posts fore answering? Goodness a
really desperate try to convince others that he actually knows what he
is talking about.

>
 From https://www.lsu.edu/internet/usenet/usenet-etiquette.html
>
"USENET Etiquette
...
     "Quote as little as possible from others' messages. This is the
only major deviation between mail etiquette and news etiquette. Your
news message may be sent to thousands of other sites. Most of these
sites keep anywhere from several days to several weeks' worth of old
news articles. This means that the article you are replying to is
probably available, if someone needs to look at it. ... Make sure that
all the quoted text is absolutely necessary. "

 Editing another person's words so as to change context and intentions
is as dishonest and cowardly as stolen valor. People who do either one
are disgusting slime.

Correct with emphasis on *so as to change context and intentions*.
The main principle of USENET News is that the context is preserved in the message hierarchy for everybody to see
(whereas in mail, there is a meaningful scenario of the mail being forwared to third parties not previously part of the discussion).
Therefore, every reader can verify himself whether the context is a abbreviated in a faithful/consistent/neutral way or in a way to change intentions as long as the attributions of each text to the relevant author are preserved in the beginning of the message
(which in mail would not be guaranteed),
and the original author is expected to jump in in for clarification in case the omission inadvertedly changed the context in a significant way.
In the current quote hierarchy, the leading words "By the way" are a stong semantic marker that everything I deleted above in [...] is irrelevant to the current discussion on USENET etiquette.
So, while in citing books, omissions in quotes are allowed but must be marked with omission markers [...]
and in mails omissions are "forbidden" because not every reader is able to retrieve the omitted part,
in USENET News shortened citations are expected and can but need not be marked with omission markers.
Rolf