On 20.06.15 23:22, Chuck Martin wrote: > Actually, that can be ambiguous. For example: > > Ian> ..... > Herbet> ... > Ian> ..... > Herbet> ... > > Is the second "Ian>" line a response to the first "Herbet>" line, or > did Herbet reply to two different parts of the same message from Ian, > trimming Ian's message in the normal way, and quoting only what he > wanted to reply to for context? And if it was the former, was the > second "Herbet>" line a response to the second "Ian>" line, or a > continuation of his response to the first "Ian>" line, or something > else entirely? Proper use of attributions and quoting in the more > common way makes this all clear.
My attempt to be accommodating of the apparently least harmful alternative appears to have been too generous. Thankfully we see so little of it that I have not experienced such confusion. It's clearly horrible. Erik -- All things are possible, except for skiing through a revolving door.
