On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 22:34 -0400, Sharad Birmiwal wrote: > > start seeing things that are not there. I suggest you download and > view > > this thread with a sane email client which allows you to see what is > > *actually* there before making these unfounded observations. > > This will be my last email since it's already way aside the original > post. I quote your email below to show my observations are not > unfounded. The first part about "don't quote wikipedia.." was an email > by you which was quoted. The last line, "often interchangeably used by > morons" was the new addition in this post by you. The conclusion I > would make is that may be you should also use a better email client > where you can see what you are writing in your email. > >
ah, now I understand your confusion. What is meant by quoting when replying to a post? Mail clients precede each quoted line with '>' character. As you can see above, there are two blank lines with only the '>' character in them. As you can see, I have left a clear line under the two blank lines, therefore the whole of my post comes clear without the initial '>'. Gmail does not show these last two blank lines when the reply is being composed, so many people start the first line of their reply with '>' without knowing it. This is what is meant by 'quoting ones own reply'. You seem to have a weird notion that one should remove ones own contribution to the thread when selecting the matter to be quoted for context. There is nothing wrong with that. -- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/ -- LUG@IITD - http://lug-iitd.org/Footer
