ASU-FTW wrote:If a poster is quoting someone, they are replying to the person who was last to reply within the quote box, or at least should be. No need to look through all the text someone has quoted, just refer to the last piece of text within the tan box. I've never had a problem deciphering who someone is directing their words to, but it does get annoying when you have to scroll through walls of quoted text.

This can be reduced somehwat if people stop quoting the original poster (especially if the message is huge) and learn how to trim quotes as you mention.

CVAPP wrote:

ASU-FTW wrote:If a poster is quoting someone, they are replying to the person who was last to reply within the quote box, or at least should be. No need to look through all the text someone has quoted, just refer to the last piece of text within the tan box. I've never had a problem deciphering who someone is directing their words to, but it does get annoying when you have to scroll through walls of quoted text.

This can be reduced somehwat if people stop quoting the original poster (especially if the message is huge) and learn how to trim quotes as you mention.

Well, I have quoted you and if you will kindly quote me without removing anything I will paste the code that needs to be removed to reply only to your last post. If we could get yet another poster to join it would be even better.

[quote="AppStateCentral"][quote="CVAPP"][quote="ASU-FTW"]If a poster is quoting someone, they are replying to the person who was last to reply within the quote box, or at least should be. No need to look through all the text someone has quoted, just refer to the last piece of text within the tan box. I've never had a problem deciphering who someone is directing their words to, but it does get annoying when you have to scroll through walls of quoted text.

This can be reduced somehwat if people stop quoting the original poster (especially if the message is huge) and learn how to trim quotes as you mention.[/quote]
Well, I have quoted you and if you will kindly quote me without removing anything I will paste the code that needs to be removed to reply only to your last post.  If we could get yet another poster to join it would be even better.[/quote]

I will join in to help the group!!  You can use this CVAPP[/quote]

[quote="AppStateCentral"]

I will join in to help the group!!  You can use this CVAPP[/quote]

[quote="AppStateCentral"]

I will join in to help the group!!  You can use this CVAPP[/quote]

My reply to AppStateCentral

AppStateCentral wrote:
I will join in to help the group!! You can use this CVAPP

AppStateCentral wrote:

CVAPP wrote:

ASU-FTW wrote:If a poster is quoting someone, they are replying to the person who was last to reply within the quote box, or at least should be. No need to look through all the text someone has quoted, just refer to the last piece of text within the tan box. I've never had a problem deciphering who someone is directing their words to, but it does get annoying when you have to scroll through walls of quoted text.

This can be reduced somehwat if people stop quoting the original poster (especially if the message is huge) and learn how to trim quotes as you mention.

Well, I have quoted you and if you will kindly quote me without removing anything I will paste the code that needs to be removed to reply only to your last post. If we could get yet another poster to join it would be even better.

I will join in to help the group!! You can use this CVAPP

Yosef wrote:I can adjust it to only show one quote this weekend if that's what people want.

Yosef wrote:I can adjust it to only show one quote this weekend if that's what people want.

AppinVA wrote: Can we compromise at three?

appdaze wrote:I don't mind the long quotes because it shows the whole conversation. If a person quotes someone about part of the thread and the thread has 100+ responses in it that means I would have to sift back through all 100 something posts to try to figure out the whole story. With the bulk quoting you can essentially have multiple conversations about the same topic within the same thread and still keep it organized without having to spend extra time sifting through other posts to find the things that people are referencing in the latest posts. It may take up more room but cmon, if you can't lift your finger to scroll down a bit more then you might need to get off the PC a little more often and go for a jog!

CVAPP wrote:

AppinVA wrote: Can we compromise at three?

If those three quotes are extremely lengthy, nothing would be accomplished by your suggestion. It looks ridiculous around here at times and you are proposing ways to make it look a little less ridiculous. Why not set higher goals?

AppinVA wrote:

CVAPP wrote:

AppinVA wrote: Can we compromise at three?

If those three quotes are extremely lengthy, nothing would be accomplished by your suggestion. It looks ridiculous around here at times and you are proposing ways to make it look a little less ridiculous. Why not set higher goals?

Okay then. You want ridiculous?

I vote to keep it at five.

CVAPP wrote:

AppinVA wrote:

CVAPP wrote:

AppinVA wrote: Can we compromise at three?

If those three quotes are extremely lengthy, nothing would be accomplished by your suggestion. It looks ridiculous around here at times and you are proposing ways to make it look a little less ridiculous. Why not set higher goals?

Okay then. You want ridiculous?

I vote to keep it at five.

I am game. Raise it to 10 and still only a few curmudgeons around here will be so lazy as to quote an entire thread when replying to its latest post.

AppinVA wrote: Yeah, we can be quite lazy (like in this thread). Of course, I just skim down to the bottom and start reading. No biggie.

CVAPP wrote:

AppinVA wrote: Yeah, we can be quite lazy (like in this thread). Of course, I just skim down to the bottom and start reading. No biggie.

Not good enough from you. You have over 9,000 posts here and I want to understand who and what you are replying too. You and others like you can do better, and I sincerely hope you will.

AppinVA wrote: Yes, sir.