"It seems a no-brainer if you see an objectionable remark in a thread to look first at the post it is a reply to. Replying to a post is effectively a form of citing it."

Not really.

Because as much as I may disagree with your above statements about UFO aliens, I defend your right ( as silly as it is ) to claim that a belief in UFO aliens is required for those who are "ethical anti-contact." )

;p

See what I'm getting at here?

And as often as you wonder how people misread you, at least the citation makes it clear just what claim in a post is being referred to. Failure to cite reduces reasonable ( albeit heated ) debate to nothing but character assassination by removing the very idea itself and instead vaguely addressing the post or the poster.

"Hate the sin, not the sinner?"

We all have room to improve. And all of us hold at least one idea in our heads we need to be disabused of. Assuming that an entire post is tarnished in its entirety or that the entire poster's posting history is tainted reduces it to ad hominem and leaves one defending a Straw Man rather than onesself. Specifying the idea through citation makes it clear just what is being interpreted to support a claim.

If you have courage in your convictions it should bolster your argument. If you have decency, it allows the other to defend. If you hate being misread, it makes your line of reasoning unambiguous.

I can't think of why anyone with courage who wishes to communicate clearly would not want to cite what they are referring to in a specific claim? But then again, my ethics don't require a belief in UFO aliens. ;p

Dante