Well stated Mr. Thurlow!
If this camel gets its nose into the tent, then what will follow?
Perhaps a rule on whether [snip] or <snip> or {snip} is the accepted
way to indicate that quoted text has been deleted.
-Nick T.
"Gary A. Thurlow" wrote:
>
> If you do impose such a rule, you will confirm the notion that you are more
> concerned with form as opposed to substance. Why would you edit/delete
> messages because they fail to meet your idea of the perfect email as to
> STYLE? I will resign when that rule is implemented. But at that point,
> you should rename this list to the "Administratively Correct List of No
> Substance but Classic Style".
>
> Gary Thurlow,
> Tired of people who make rules only because they CAN make rules.
>
> PS - My first statement makes no sense does it? That is because it is out
> of context. If we used this list correctly, the information I referred-to
> would appear at the beginning of the message with my NEW information at the
> end. As it is, I cannot "refer" to anything, I must "prefer" to that which
> follows. Ludicrous.
[snip]
>
> At 08:12 PM 2/23/2003, Willem-Jan wrote:
>
> >Those who quote in reverse order are 100% likely NOT to cut their
> >quotes at all....not the first quote in precession, nor the second
> >and third one (further down the bottom!) either.
>
> <snip>
>
> >If a next version of Majordomo ever improves to the point that I can
> >filter *any* reverse order (but only with adequate bounce-
> >notification to the 'offendor'), I won't hesitate one second to
> >implement it....you guys are just lucky that the current version
> >can't do this....;))))
> >(nor can it do even a minimum of bounce-notification, sadly)
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
