As a politician I can say that not making money from the post doesn't necessarily disqualify your from a future in the glory of the company of the bashed by the constituency. However, after a thorough analysis of your original suggestion I can find a certain lack of complexity, which I will shortly outline below (And even further below, unless of course you read the second reply, when this sentence does not apply. Furthermore the wish for complexity I must claim, really depends on which political party you confess to being member of. Some parties doesn't really enjoy complexety - but rather strives for the contrary in all situations - even those that actually need analysis and complexity. The latter does not apply to my party naturally - which is [Insert favourite deity]s gift to humankind (unless of course you are a Budhist or confessor of some other deityfree religion or religious order)).
That said I would propose that the suggested standard reply also includes the attribution line (beginning with 2005/12) below (or above if you read the second reply). This will facilitate easier addressing of the reply from below or above if you read the first reply. Thank you for your otherwise excellent and well considered suggestion. Regards, Martin S ;-) 2005/12/30, Knight, Jon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Since I'm not making any side money from this, I can't really claim to be > a > politician! > Just trying to bring happiness to the masses. Of course, I've added > significant complexity, so maybe that qualifies me??? > > > Great! > Are you a politician? > /$ > > 2005/12/30, Knight, Jon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Well, this requires yet a bit more work from the poster, but I'd like to > > submit the following for approval ;-) ... > > > > Reply #3 > > Reply #2 > > Reply #1 > > Original Message Here > > Reply #1 > > Reply #2 > > Reply #3 > > > > (This is all in fun :-) ) > > > > Thanks, > > Jon Knight > > Great! > Are you a politician? > /$ > > 2005/12/30, Knight, Jon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Since I'm not making any side money from this, I can't really claim to be > a > politician! > Just trying to bring happiness to the masses. Of course, I've added > significant complexity, so maybe that qualifies me??? As a politician I can say that not making money from the post doesn't necessarily disqualify your from a future in the glory of the company of the bashed by the constituency. However, after a thorough analysis of your original suggestion I can find a certain lack of complexity, which I will shortly outline below (And even further below, unless of course you read the second reply, when this sentence does not apply. Furthermore the wish for complexity I must claim, really depends on which political party you confess to being member of. Some parties doesn't really enjoy complexety - but rather strives for the contrary in all situations - even those that actually need analysis and complexity. The latter does not apply to my party naturally - which is [Insert favourite deity]s gift to humankind (unless of course you are a Budhist or confessor of some other deityfree religion or religious order)). That said I would propose that the suggested standard reply also includes the attribution line (beginning with 2005/12) below (or above if you read the second reply). This will facilitate easier addressing of the reply from below or above if you read the first reply. Thank you for your otherwise excellent and well considered suggestion. Regards, Martin S ;-)
