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', or ':' to defeat the news filtering program, and in about 5% of such responses I do not quote the originator's name.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