On 05/19/2008 11:38 AM, John Kaufmann wrote: > In a message dated 2008.05.19 12:16 -0500, Harold Fuchs wrote: > >> On 19/05/2008 15:01, mike scott wrote: >>> Bottom posting's fine - but please, please, please learn to snip!!!!! >>> Most of what you quoted was quite irrelevant to your response. >>> >> Could we keep just one thread from deteriorating into a vituperative, >> puerile, ad hominem bun fight about psephology, numismatics, religion, >> bottom posting and/or conspiracy theories? ... > > Harold, I hate to disagree with you, but may I rise to Mike's defense? - His > comment was not ad hominem, nor in the vein of the top/bottom-posting wars. > It was merely saying Please edit to send only what is relevant. Surely we > can all agree that simple courtesy - and the fact that a message has MANY > more readers than authors, places a burden on the author to quote > economically and efficiently. [Mike's parenthetical "Bottom posting's fine - > but..." was not a swipe at any particular posting style (but may have > recognized that good editing is even more needed with bottom posting).] > > Now (I hope) back to the thread topic...
+1 172 lines for 7 lines of text isn't necessary. And yes... no snippage in my reply. FWIW I pretty much agree with John Meyer's comment :-) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
