Why don't I see quotes . . .

.. I have a question (as you see). This question is sort of deceptive. It gets at the very heart of the Forum for me. Why don't I see quotes? I note that "Professional Skeptics" quote positions, and that they "use them almost throughout" in so doing we will see "quotations" '(From those that held a position, if not from the famous proponent and in current debate)'There's a good chance that enmity or some kind of contempt are going to come out in the author's words. That's not the problem It's when I don't see quotes that worries me Most books don't fail at this point. You really don't see many quotations here and there nor anywhere in the document. I know people have the chance, so why doesn't happen as much at this public Forum? One must "quote" to point to an element or establish a position "Professionals" have been doing it, so why not at this public Forum ? Or is it just their "'two cents' worth" That sounds absurd to say but that's the impression you get. Edited by AdminPD, : Fixed font sizeEdited by mental-4-snausages, : Reason It's too wordy and lengthy ( and dropped the "Nickell ref.") & In quotes " " substitutedEdited by mental-4-snausages, : Reason It's too wordy and lengthy ( and dropped the "Nickell ref.") & In quotes " " substituted

---

Yes, It will happen to U

Hi M4S. I hope you don't mind my abreviating your username. Welcome to EvC.If you would enlarge your lettering and restate more clearly and concisely what you are wanting addressed regarding quotes, perhaps I or another who comprehends you better will be able to help you.

Are you asking why people don't footnote the messages they post here?

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hey, How you doing I know people don't footnote that's why I completely dropped that.
The heart of what I wrote that this place ".. [is] purportedly dedicated to the Creation versus Evolution debate" I don't necessarily see "quotations", not in the numbers, from the various sides within a position Edited by mental-4-snausages, : Want to say a heads up to AdminBuzsaw and really needed to thank him,
so Tausend Dank! Edited by mental-4-snausages, : .............................My poor Spelling

If somebody refers to a particular paper or article, quotes from said article are often put forward. Likewise in refutations, other quotes in the same paper or others are often put forward.Other times, this isn't necessary. The debate here mostly surrounds biology, if you look at the current posts in the biological evolution forum (Biological Evolution), you will see plenty of quotes.Examples:
Message 6 Williams (1957)
Human Brain Evolution Was a 'Special Event' Lahn (2004?)
Message 42 Jiggins et al (2004)
OMG!! Humans are more closely related to chimps than to other humans!!! Redon et al (2006)
Population Genetics ReMine
Embryonic fossils 500 MY old - a YEC explanation? Hagadorn et al (2006)
Message 31 Rachmilevitch et al (2004)Most topics tend to be quite focussed, so only a small number of references are usually needed. I don't think as you do. Since joining EvC I have always had a wealth of interesting new papers to read!Edited by AdminModulous, : biological evolution forum reference in each link was a little redundant.

You said, "..this isn't necessary" I'm not sure how that comes across I mean, Doesn't that assumes there is a quasi-definitive or lexicon(al) aspect belonging to all the posts and threads here?

Sometimes a person might have made a logical error in their reasoning. No reference to other papers is necessary to show that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.There are probably other reasons too. Why not post an example of where a thread would require a reference, but none was given? I know it happens a lot anyway, but you will see plenty of requests of the order of 'do you have a reference for that...?'Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

general consensus among all the adminThe deeper the level of discussion the more compartmentalization can be found in the thought.
.. .. You ever wonder why some people think the way they do? Because I wonder why some people think the way they do, I'd feel a desire for MORE MORE MORE "quotations" for everyone, ESPECIALLY for the peripheral takes on the issue(s) | An unspoken goal towards"the final product" if you will.
.. ..It's a shame there are some "minority positions" or unusual authors I miss out on in not having "adequate" citations Edited by mental-4-snausages, : Edited by mental-4-snausages Son of a citations, I no SpellEdited by mental-4-snausages, : Edited by mental-4-snausages
STrangely you say!

---

Yes, It will happen to U

Rule of thumb here is that you don't change an opening post after someone has responded to it.The exception is for typos or style.I think the concensus on your question so far is that you need to provide links to posts you feel didn't provide enough appropriate quotes.Your question can't be answered if it isn't clearly understood.Please provide links to clear examples.

I really can't understand a word this guy is typing but I think I might have the gist of what he is trying to say.I think he's talking more generally than a specific thread that is missing a reference.I think he is trying to say that, in general, this website should be more productive towards the goal of the debate, by referencing actual science articles and discussing those, as opposed to the off-topic (wrt EvC) and unscientific discussions that we usually have around here.