Let's play nice, everyone.
Am a couple pages back catching up.
Quinn, I got a message a few month back from a very active and good poster who suddenly stopped posting. He was not upset about arguing. Biases and frustrations show in delivering opinions and replies. He had a point.
When the quote of someone else is clicked, and the responder proceeds to edit the message by changing and adding words and phrases, underlining, bolding, and/or capitalizing words, or injected comments not apparent from the poster of origin, that comparatively is more offensive and interpreted to be simply tacky, rude, childish, trolling, and lame attempts at discrediting. While the poster of origin initial post holds, subsequent responding allows for editing external to the post's writer.
I am not speaking about quoting a sentence, phrase, or paragraph of the original poster; that's appropriate and it is readily understood that the reader can scroll up or back to find the full statement of origin.
Here's another comment on the subject. Clicking quotes that have multiple quotes therein can be so annoying. One can often see a full page of repeated quotes with deteriorating comments climaxing to who delivers the last word. If reading is to be friendly, that nonsense should have limits. Am not talking about someone writing at length with a thoughtful and detailed post. But really, do stacked posts with multiple confusing visual attributions need to have the saturated redundancy?
Maybe the master settings need tweaked?