Two points:
The more mundane first. I think Nick is really *wanting* more than is
implied by the specific question. I guess I would claim (if I
understand Nick's intention well) that if *everyone* *always* left the
included text from the earlier parts of the thread, the entire thread
would exist in linear form (with whatever cruft each mailer adds to
indicate inclusion) with full context. I find myself alternating
between eliminating the text of what I'm responding to and leaving it
entirely out, and "larding" ( a term Nick so generously introduced us
to) my responses into the text. Each mode fits different contexts (and
moods) for me.
The biggest challenge (I think) to leaving all the text included (other
than just text/data bloat) is that many of us aren't responding to the
entire linear text of every response that came before... we are often
responding only to part of it which suggests a tree structure rather
than a simple linear "thread" as we colloquial call it... it is more of
a multi-filiament?
Both of these point to the value of an "editorial role"... which is
there to tease out or highlight or contextualize this complex
"conversation". I assume Nick is asking for syntactic help in
rendering the myriad modes of inclusion and formatting down to something
simple and linearized...
I still miss Nick's effort to set up a self-curated system for this with
his "noodles" as introduced at SFx nearly 10 years ago. Very few of us
(Arlo?) engaged in it, but it was interesting enough for me to give it a
whirl...
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
