John Summerfield: > Tim, I wish you wouldn't do that. Email clients (I'm using seamonkey, > but others do it too) can display messages in threads, so one can see > who said what in response to whom. > > Your montage replies stuff that up(-: This is nothing to do with "threads." And I didn't "write" the stuff below where you said "Tim wrote:". I may well have sent that, but I didn't write it. I attribute who says what above what they say, in the prior message. Generally doing no more than two or three generations of quotes back. Snippage is easy (simply slice off a paragraph and attribution at the top), doesn't attribute text to someone else, doesn't require interpretation to figure out who said what. I *HATE* this sort of crap: Fred: > John wrote: >> Barney wrote: >>> Wilma wrote: >>>> I have *figure* out that Wilma wrote this > That Barney wrote this >> work out John wrote this > and have to figure out that Fred wrote this Playing join the dots between text and attribution is a hodge podge mess of disorganised crap. I'd sooner have HTML mail with hover-over-text author identification than try and unravel lazy multi-generational quotes. Which get worse with bad snippage, hideous line wraps that bugger up the insertions of quote indicators, clients that don't insert quote prefixes, and very long posts, where all the attribution is up off the top of the screen. -- (This computer runs FC7, my others run FC4, FC5 & FC6, in case that's important to the thread.) Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
