Too much quoting happening?

Message volume has recently been very high (in number of messages per day). I thing a good general rule, is that quality tends to be inversly proportional to quantity.That general gripe said, I get to the real topic.I am seeing a lot of messages with alternating little quotes, followed by little replies. This strikes me as being bad writing form, and the messages sure seem to be far from "Post of the Month" quality.The following are recent examples of what I'm talking about. I'm not trying to pick on anyone or any topic. These were just handy examples:http://EvC Forum: The Power/Reality Of Demons And Supernatural Evil. -->EvC Forum: The Power/Reality Of Demons And Supernatural Evil.
http://EvC Forum: Macro and Micro Evolution -->EvC Forum: Macro and Micro Evolution
http://EvC Forum: A young sun - a response -->EvC Forum: A young sun - a response
http://EvC Forum: Flaws in the Scriptures -->EvC Forum: Flaws in the ScripturesMight I suggest that quoting be kept to a minimum (this will also cut down on server space needs), and the writer instead strive for a nice, unified message.Responses to this message are most welcome,
Adminnemooseus

AdminnemooseusIs it ok then if we simply make our statement and allow the readers to do the search of previous posts in order to understand where the points of contention lay? If so, I have no problem with this as it is far more time consuming for me to make the quotations available.

Yea, I agree with sidelined. It is much easier to follow if the two sides are presented next to each other.

OK, maybe it's a personal problem, but here's a couple of examples (randomly encountered) that I find to be so fragmented by quotations that I find it really tough reading.http://EvC Forum: Lesbian Archers for Rei -->EvC Forum: Lesbian Archers for Rei
http://EvC Forum: Lesbian Archers for Rei -->EvC Forum: Lesbian Archers for ReiAdminnemooseus (cranky mode)

I would be much easier if you made [ quote ] behave like [ qs ] - the shaded quotes are much easier to read.

Could one of the problems here be that some members have this idea that they MUST address every statement of the post (often looooong ones) they are responding to? Often I've noticed that some who do this tend to say something -- anything, whether it amounts to anything or not to every sentence or paragraph in what they are responding to. I'm not saying I'm totally innocent of this, but generally, I try to pick out important items I want to address and let the rest pass. Then too, some have criticized me for this, saying I ignored certain aspects of their post. Generally I like to pick and choose what I deem worth my time and forum bandwith for response. There are times though, when I feel it is necessary to address everything in a post, even when it is rather lengthy, but that's not the usual.

Excellent points, buz. How many times have we seen posters get accused - especially in heated debates, or where you're down to the minutiae level - of ignoring or skipping points, or not reading the post, or taking bits out of context in a reply, etc, when they DON'T address each line? I think it's a structural problem of this type of debate forum. I often feel constrained to say something about each statement made simply to avoid having to go back later and explain in a subsequent post that I ignored it because it was irrelevant - and then be accused of glossing over the utterly insignificant statement that all of a sudden becomes crucial in the mind of the poster I'm replying to. After all (the thought goes), if I didn't address it, obviously I couldn't, etc ad nauseum. Borger was notorious for it, and there are several current posters who operate in a similar vein (although usually more logically than Borger did).One possible solution (which I've occasionally used) is to use the quote or qs function with the first and last few words of the section to which you're replying only, separated by ellipses. That makes it a bit slower to post, and makes it a bit harder to follow for readers, but does cut down on space - which seems to be CrankyMoose's main objection. Another problem with this idea is that many people simply don't make paragraphs well - they contain a number of different points, all of which need to be addressed with separate replies. Tis a puzzlement.