Originally Posted by yardguy28
see how I changed what you said.
now it's a drastic change to make my point but it makes my points and I have seen things like this happen.
In all my years here, I haven't seen that happen. Obviously, that's not to say it hasn't because you seem to have run into it, but when I weigh out the cost to benefit, I think the ability to edit down a quote outweighs the minimal risk that you demonstrate. Really, to boil it down, if someone posts 8 high-resolution pictures of a weed they want identified, do I really need to keep seeing those accurately quoted each time, or can I just quote the part that says, "Hey, guys...what kind of weed is this?".
If it's a long post, containing multiple questions, it's much easier to respond to by breaking it out and replying question by question. It's also easier to read the reply and understand what is being addressed without having to cross-reference the original paragraphs and try to understand what is being responded to. I use this quite often due to the varied, detailed questions we see in the web sub-forum.
Originally Posted by tonygreek
Yardguy, see how I've changed what you say I said, but what I've just done here is not using the reply feature, per se. Anything can be wrapped in quote tags, bolded, and italicized. Only thing missing is that little blue arrow image (View Post) that you can click to read the original quote source, but it's not really missing because I reinserted it via an image link. Basically, this quote is entirely a mirage.