To avoid having an off-topic set of posts on another thread, I am creating this post for discussion of quote interspersion.

On another thread, John Flaherty said:

Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
A brief history of the interspersed quote thing, as I recall it.

This is a technique that Jeff Dieffenbach introduced (no attack there, Jeff, just trying to present what I recollect. If I'm wrong, feeel free to correct me). For the longest time, he was the only one that used it, until people started to use it in response to his posts.

Ironically, when Dave Bernstein came on the forums for the first time, he publicly asked Jeff to stop doing that....

I could be wrong, but that's how I remember it, and if someone cared enough, they could go back and piece it all together.
I believe you are wrong, because this is one of Dave's very first posts on the Discussion Forum:
http://www.waylandenews.com/forum/sh...&p=283#post283, and I couldn't find anywhere that he criticized Jeff for using this "technique".

I know that among others I've used it, Dave has used it, Jeff Baron and Alan Reiss have used it. I suspect some who haven't used it, simply haven't explored how to do it.

My question is: are other people really bothered by it? I find it to be useful if it clarifies what you are responding to. It might be better to try to intersperse in bigger chunks, but there's always a trade-off (e.g., on the other extreme, sometimes people just quote the whole post they are responding to, and it results in an overly long and hard to read post. I dislike that).

I wonder if what you really object to is that people can respond selectively to what's in a post, though really they can do that anyway, even if they include the whole quote.

As for Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, it's just too beautiful to take one sentence at a time. :-)