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*?
They really ought to bring back the punishment of tying people up in stocks in the village square and pelting them with rotten fruit, and apply it to people who post to e-mail lists in senseless formats.
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
Go have a drink. It's not that serious.
k
On 4/4/06, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name 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*?
They really ought to bring back the punishment of tying people up in stocks in the village square and pelting them with rotten fruit, and apply it to people who post to e-mail lists in senseless formats.
-- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/5/06, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name 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*?
Oh jeez. I just found the relevant message, and I don't see the issue. Your explanation is complicated, but basically it was like this:
Quote Newtext in response Signature Quote header Quote with > signs
The formatting was certainly original, but all the original attribution was retained, and there was no difficulty whatsoever working out who wrote the text being replied to.
Now, as punishment for having this retarded conversation, I suggest we all go and destubify an article related to lolicon or something.
Steve