Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
How about Katefan0's format of 4 Apr 2006 18:30:44, which consisted of quoting back a paragraph from an earlier message without attribution line or quoting markers, followed immediately (with no indicator of where the quote ended and the reply began) with the reply... and then *that* was followed by a fullquote of the original message (including a second copy of the paragraph already quoted above it). Can *anybody* come up with a coherent defense of such a quoting format as *that*?
I have one!
If you can't understand it, what business do you have trying to create an encyclopaedia for god's sake? :)
Chris