On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 05:46:31PM +0000, Jamie Paul Griffin wrote: > > On 2012-11-27, Jamie Paul Griffin <ja...@kode5.net> wrote: > > > > > > I'm sorry but you've lost me again :-) - both of you > > > > There are two kinds of people: > > > > 1) Those who oppose ambiguity > > 2) Those who are wrong > > > > Now those who oppose ambiguity want quotes to be trimmed, with a > > direct reply underneath so there is no ambiguity on which comment the > > response addresses. Those who oppose ambiguity also want unambiguous > > EOLs, so the end of a line cannot be confused with an authors > > misguided attempt to use the EOL as a crutch for a poor rendering > > tool. > > > > Those in group 2 expect the readers to do the work -- they want the > > reader to deal with figuring out what reply references what comment, > > and guess about where lines need to (re)wrap, and where line breaks > > should be honored.
That seems to sum up the issue pretty nicely, even if some of the language used was somewhat confrontational. > ok, thanks for clarifying that. Seems a very rigit method of judging a > person but hey, i'm sure you're right. All methods of judgement are rigid, by their very nature. It is only the human element which allows them to be flexible (for example, I knew what you meant when you typed "rigit"). Humans have differing levels of tolerance; but regardless of the level, when they are finally surpassed, violent eruptions (verbal or physical, or both) will occur. -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
pgp7REJlB9UcK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
