Go to the previous, next section.
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:
@centerline ... @rm{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.(9) 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.
Go to the previous, next section.