--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: > > > > 1. The absence of snipping keeps the original context. > > But often a reply is only directed to a portion of > > whatever was in a post, so it depends. > > And besides, only the truly paranoid give a shit if > someone snips part of what they said. I mean, give > me a break...AS IF *anything* ever said on this > forum was worth preserving its "context." :-) > > > Judy and Barry format with newspaper sized columns. > > This works pretty well for preserving the format > > unless the material has been requoted in Yahoo > > many times, or the viewing screen is very small, > > then lines may break erratically. > > I do it mainly out of habit, and because I'm a > bit of a nitpicker when it comes to such things. > If you haven't noticed, I often reformat the > original quoted text so that it *doesn't* get > messed up after multiple quotes. It's an OCD > thang, perhaps, but it amuses me. :-) > > > Note, when he was here, Robin used to reformat all > > his discussions with people's names and a number > > to indicate how far back in the conversation or > > diatribe that was going on. That also worked well. > > For you, perhaps. I thought it was the dumbest > affectation I've ever seen on the Internet. I > mean, *really*, he did it so that all of *his* > precious words got reposted over and over and > over, AS IF someone was actually going to read > them this time. :-)
Been a while at the cafe now Barry? You seem to have crossed the threshold and just consumed your "mean drink". That usually means about the third of fourth of the night. >
