Hello Allie, > Your response surprises me.
Why? You should know me by now. > On the one hand we're discussing an introduction that is 2 or three > lines long and questioning its redundancy. Redundant and unnecessary information is redundant and unnecessary regardless of how long it is. > And now you're trying to compare it to quoting my *entire* 55+ lines of > original message text. No, I wasn't trying to compare both things. I was just trying to show that I could use your same arguments to try justify over quoting (which means including redundant and unnecessary information) in a list like this. <snipped> > I do think you see my point but just wish to be difficult. I see your point but I don't agree with it. And yes, maybe I'm trying to be difficult, but not _just_ trying to be difficult. > Introductions of the type you so criticize are not disallowed on this > list. However, overquoting is. I know, and the rules are the rules and I accept them even if I may not like some of them . However, the fact that this kind of introductions are allowed doesn't mean they are necessary or that they include any useful/helpful information. They just include redundant and unnecessary information. Allowed, but unnecessary and redundant. > Note that we *do* quote some of the original text when we do reply and > your mischievous counter-argument would hold water *only* if we didn't > quote any original text at all. I guess you didn't understand my counter-argument. > Now, can we please stop this nitpicking about how members choose to word > introductions to their replies. Of course we can. Cheers :) -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v2.01.3 Winamp OFF: ________________________________________________ Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
