Re: same *** marriage petition (Canada) .

"Gene Douglas" <genedoug@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:OBOCb.36366$uX4.27710@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Rather than including a single sentence, or a half sentence, just leave
in
the previous paragraph, and that will generally clarify what the
discussion
was about.  And it isn't an insinuation.  It's a flat out statement. ... <

That is a useful suggestion. However, I would normally snip the last two
sentences. Would it change the meaning if I snipped it as > Rather than
including a single sentence, or a half sentence, just leave in the
previous
paragraph, and that will generally clarify what the discussion was about.
.... < ?  Is it necessary to retain "And it isn't an insinuation.  It's a
flat out statement." in order to respond? That is the kind of editing that
I
believe I've been doing.

> You change the meaning of what you reply to by quoting a phrase or two.
<

And I'd probably snip that statement because it still remains an assertion
without an example.

> Often the answer to your objection is contained in the preceding
paragraph. <

Is it? It would be interesting to see an example of that. If the preceding
material did not communicate the same position as the latter material then
the problem may be in the writing rather than the reading.

> And others aren't obligated to start searching a thread to find the
relevant material. <

It is not my job to express your thoughts. That remains your job. There is
no reason to repost paragraphs from your post that I'm not responding to
in
my post. There is no reason to post sentences within paragraphs if I have
nothing to say about them.

And I'll drop phrases that are non-essential, especially if they are
insinuations or insults. For example, "You jerk, don't you know that x =
y"
would become ">... x = y <" followed by my explanation of why x does not
equal y.