Ralph Shumaker wrote:
[snip]
You left this reference, but everything James G. Sack said this deep has
been snipped out. For example:
jim wrote:
> these words, but
> Ralph wrote:
> > these words, and
> > jim wrote:
> > > these words, but
> > > Ralph wrote:
> > > > these words, not jim.
> > > > jim wrote:
> > > > > nothing that didn't get snipped out from this level.
however,
> > > Ralph wrote:
> > > > these words, but
> > > > jim wrote:
> > > > [words written by Ralph but appear to be jim's]
Don't get me wrong. I'd rather see that mistake than:
jim wrote:
> these words, but
> > > > who the hell knows who wrote these words!?!?
I generally do all my snipping, and then figure out how many levels of
attribution need to be left. If the longest quoting looks like:
> > > > these words
then I know that the deepest attribution that needs to remain is:
> > > so-and-so wrote:
So while you take me to task for doing a sloppy job of trying to trim
irrelevant content from quoted material, you fail to trim at all.
I guess that makes us even. :P
--
Best Regards,
~DJA.
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
