On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 03:45:11PM +0100, Nick Wilson wrote: > * Thorsten Haude <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020106 15:40]: > > Moin, > > > > * Nick Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [02-01-06 14:26]: > > >* Thorsten Haude <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020106 14:22]: > > >> * David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [02-01-06 12:55]: > > >> >You should try replying in context instead of at the bottom; it's even > > >> >better ;-) > > >> Yeah, and we like totally unlike anything that would made mails hard > > >> to read for no good reasons. > > >So does that mean you are for 'replying in context' or against? > > >I couldn't understand your sentence. > > Sorry to confuse you, I was only referring to an old quarrel with > > David. > > > > IMHO you should make reasonable bits out of the mail you answer and > > write your answer in each context. > > > > Thorsten > > -- > > There is no drug known to man which becomes safer when its > > production and distribution are handed over to criminals. > > Problem is that I find that format more confusing and prefer to only > quote if the point I refer to _really_ needs it. (like it's a really > long mail) > > I take it that this topic is much debated? > Or do I constitute a minority? :)
Its also good if people don't quote signatures as people names are given in the attrib lines. -- Benjamin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
msg22394/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
