OT: reply styles, family matters

[Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com>]

I have a roughly forty year old nephew who uses email as a 
vehicle for political and philosophical discussion. His father 
is named Dave Bernstein, but not the same Dave Bernstein who 
teaches law at George Mason and recently came out with a book, 
_Lawless_, which looks at the current prez's penchant for um 
shall we say um "improvising" on the limits of the chief 
executive's powers. You get the drift I'm sure.

So I sent my nephew a review of the book that I found in 
_Commentary_, a fairly conservative organ of opinion. I headed 
the email with the subject line "DAVE BERNSTEIN HAS A NEW BOOK 
OUT" in order to tweak his curiosity. It worked. He treated me 
to a spirited reply, rather long too for him, but concluded it 
with this thought:

"Please don't respond line by line. It is patronizing and
annoying."

I have acquired over the years a habit of carefully quoting and 
replying to those quoted snippets. But it rubs some in my family 
the wrong way. They don't see it as part and parcel of effective 
communication, or as, at bottom, simply good netiquette. They 
feel talked down to. My nephew's father had the same problem 
with me years ago but I think I have brought him around over 
time so that he no longer "takes it personal."

With that as background, here is my question/request: is anyone 
aware of a spirited defence of our ideal method of "selective 
quoting," (for lack of a better label) one, say, that perhaps 
has achieved the status of a "net classic?" Surely some 'net 
genius has dealt these nay-sayers, who seem to LIKE top-posting, 
a solid uppercut?

Thanks,

--
Bob Bernstein