On 04/05/06, Uwe Brauer <oub(a)mat.ucm.es> wrote:
>>>> "Steve" == Steve Bennett
>>>> <stevage(a)gmail.com> writes:
Steve> A similar problem exists when one person raises a number of
Steve> objections, and another person replies to them all. The replier
Steve> frequently doesn't sign each point - or, if they do, it looks
Steve> pedantic. Try and solve that problem too :)
Steve> Steve
You mean
,----
| Author 1:
| The text is incorrect because
| #Fermat was a genius
| #Fermat knew already things he never published.
| ~~~~
`----
So you say there are people who are replying like this:
,----
| The text is incorrect because
| #Fermat was a genius
| :no he was insane
| #Fermat knew already things he never published.
| :Like what?
| ~~~~
`----
Instead of:
,----
| :what you say is obviously wrong, since
| :: no he was insane
| :: Like what
| ~~~~
`----
The first type of reply seems to me quite insane!
No, it's perfectly logical, and is very easy to read. The only problem
arises if there are replies to replies. Note that you *can* sign every
line:
| The text is incorrect because
| #Fermat was a genius
| :no he was insane ~~~~
| #Fermat knew already things he never published.
| :Like what? ~~~~
`----
Steve