When following up to an article, many newsreaders provide the facility
to quote the original article with each line prefixed by >
, as in
In article <1232@foo.bar.com>, sharon@foo.bar.com wrote:
> I agree, I think that basketweaving's really catching on,
> particularly in Pennsylvania. Here's a list of every person
> in PA that currently engages in it publicly:
line ... etc ...
This is a severe example (potentially a horribly long article), but
proves a point. When you quote another person, edit out whatever
isn't directly applicable to your reply. {But not changing their
words, of course. } This gives the reader of the new article a better
idea of what points you were addressing. By including the entire
article, you'll only annoy those reading it. Also, signatures in the
original aren't necessary; the readers already know who wrote it (by
the attribution).
Avoid being tedious with responses---rather than pick apart an
article, address it in parts or as a whole. Addressing practically
each and every word in an article only proves that the person
responding has absolutely nothing better to do with his time.
If a "war" starts (insults and personal comments get thrown back
and forth), take it into email---exchange email with the person
you're arguing with. No one enjoys watching people bicker
incessantly.