Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!CORY.BERKELEY.EDU!dillon
From: dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Structured Graphics Standard
Message-ID: <8809242205.AA15401@cory.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 24 Sep 88 22:05:04 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Lines: 28

:Um, Matt...  did it ever occur to you that such confusions occur
:mostly because of people who quote other articles without noting where
:the article quoted is, or who wrote it?  You do the same thing
:yourself, after all...
:
:(not a flame)
:
:                                        -Deven

	True enough.   I always stick quoted stuff in '>', or ':' to defeat 
the news filtering program, and in about 5% of such responses I do not
quote the originator's name.  I do this on purpose for several reasons. 

	(1) If the quote taken alone is easily misinterpreted by people who
	    have not been following the conversation.  I.E. so they don't 
	    flame the guy and to maybe force them to go back a bit and find
	    the thread.

	(2) If the quote is general or if my message is not directly
	    related to the quote.  In such cases it (the quote) has already
	    been discussed to death so I like to disassociate my reply as
	    much as possible from it.  I.E. make people concentrate on what
	    I'm saying instead of what the quote said.

	I've always assumed that the '>' or ':' makes it obviously a quote.


					-Matt