-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Fj De Bruin [FDB] wrote:
FDB> I fail to see what point you try to make here. That there are
FDB> different schools of thought? I know that.
FDB> Maybe we should discuss whether the second URL you posted is more
FDB> authorative than the first URL you posted? Or why point 2.3 of
FDB> the second URL seems worth adhering to but point 3.3 is not?
You make a good point here that I can agree with. :)
The initial URL points to an RFC outlining summary posting as having a
top posting type format. I personally wouldn't mind this at all and
don't really see the difference if you switch the quote and reply
around (*if you trim the quoted material appropriately*).
However, note that the RFC describes using appropriate formatting in
appropriate circumstances, i.e., inline posts for replies in which
more than 3 points in the original message are being specifically
addressed (how they came up with the cut off of 3 beats me <G>) and
summary posting (reply text at top, *with adequately trimmed* quoted
original text at the bottom) for other replies.
You and others seem to defend top posting for all replies. This is
what I disagree with.
BTW, my post here would qualify as a summary post wouldn't it? I
haven't split up the original message and replied between the lines.
All of my reply is below the quoted original text. :)
- --
Cheers, | List Moderator
Allie C Martin | TB! v1.62/Beta1 | Windows XP Pro
____________..____________:________________..________________
PGP/GPG Key: http://pubkey.ac-martin.com
'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iD8DBQE9VP0dV8nrYCsHF+IRAg8qAJ4/BvtOezQDL7pJPcnOoHQqVG5MxgCfYseW
2+H3frv9MYTvGH8JUkNqgAU=
=skPW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
________________________________________________________
Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
