May be used as a preliminary phase to DialecticMode, with actual identities rather than dramatic identities. Useful whenever two participants are arguing seemingly opposed points of view, but are willing to articulate their divergences.

''DialogMode is very rude! It makes no sense. It confuses the readers. Do not do it!''

The stylistic convention derives from the "interleaved replies in italics" convention of ThreadMode. One participant consistently uses normal text, the other italics; signatures are unnecessary, which makes it easier to break up parts of the discussion into distinct portions without confusion with respect to who said what, and without needing to use signatures.

''Oh, this is so wrong. If you don't sign every little bit of text, it makes it very confusing who wrote what. Suppose a third party joins? Suppose dialog in a different italics phase cycle merges with other text.''

[Yes, this happens when a third party injects an observation related to -- but not directly supporting either of -- the two views already being expressed. Sometimes the author will offset his comment with square brackets or other textual mechanica.]
----
It's much better to reply with a succession of essays. Refactor (well, rework) the discussion later.

''"Refactor later" hasn't done me much good with code. Essays tend to break up into multiple unrelated arguments, out of which it is hard to extract a coherent whole. What's a way out of the dilemma ?''

Break the discussion onto separate pages.

''...the main risk being that the opposing viewpoints will at best be segregated each on its own page, at worst spawn additional ThreadMode arguments.''
-----
CategoryMode