# Ability to unroll context when in-reply-to indicator is suppressed? **URL:** \ **Category:** Feature\ **Created:** [Julho 28, 2014, 1:54pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/ability-to-unroll-context-when-in-reply-to-indicator-is-suppressed/18166 "2014-07-28T13:54:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 8
**Author:** ![codinghorror](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/codinghorror/32/110067_2.png) [@codinghorror](https://meta.discourse.org/u/codinghorror)\ **Post date:** [Julho 29, 2014, 7:01am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/ability-to-unroll-context-when-in-reply-to-indicator-is-suppressed/18166/8 "2014-07-29T07:01:36Z")
> [@Maciejasjmj](#): > > Obviously, I don’t intend to reply to @anotheruser I disagree, and I think @anotheruser would as well. If you quote someone, you are directly referencing them – that’s a reply. The cases where you would realistically claim > Oh, I quoted something Joe said but I wasn’t _talking to_ Joe are exceedingly rare… unless you are “talking to” some world famous author like JRR Tolkien, if you are locally quoting someone you are referencing them and replying to them and engaging them in the context of other local ongoing conversations. That’s the entire purpose of discussion software. (also if you _really_ didn’t want to reply to them, use the plain `>` quote, not a structured expandable quote.) If a discussion veers off wildly, to the point that **others participating in the topic would object to the very presence of their posts in that topic as defined by the topic title and the first post** – it means that conversation should be in a different topic. So either - Reply as New Topic should have occurred or - a moderator Split of their conversation into a new Split Topic should now occur --- _[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/ability-to-unroll-context-when-in-reply-to-indicator-is-suppressed/18166)._