Gregory's Server@trwnh for me, a reply is intended mainly for the person whose post i’m replying to (e.g. this reply is me answering your question for your benefit), whereas a quote is intended mainly for my followers (e.g. quoting a good point and elaborating on it, so that i can spread that point to people who follow me but not OP)
|
2 comments
 @trwnh maybe we have different ideas of semantics. for me, specifying an addressee 100% changes the meaning of an utterance. if i yell “fire” at a rifleman, it means something different than yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. the meaning isn’t just the replied/quoted post plus my post; it also includes the relation my audience has to my post. more broadly: meaning is a function of how an audience relates to an utterance, so signaling the audience and intended relationship changes the meaning |
@tech_himbo this seems to still be about functionality not semantics, although it does get at the intended purpose. but semantically you are talking about audience and context, and the same functionality could be modeled by setting a flag to show reply context, or by changing a context, or even being particular about who you include in `to` vs who you include in `cc`.
the question is, is this enough? or does the act also involve a component of “special relationship” between quote and quoted?