Steve D writes:

> <<Yes...and one of those costs is educating people.  The original poster,
> for example, about posting binaries.  You, for example, about the value
> of clearly quoting included text.  (E.g., a single "<<" at start and single
> ">>" at end really isn't sufficient.)>>
>
> Clearly a matter of personal opinion. I generally try to refrain from
> imposing my personal preferences on others as some kind of "law" about which
> they need to be "educated".

Yep. Personal opinion.

And...mine's right!  :)

I've had problems reading your postings ... I sometimes don't bother, because
I know ahead of time that I'll have difficulty determining what's the
quoted content, and what's the new content.

> <<Note that the "in practice the occasional attachment seems to neither
> cause difficulties" is clearly wrong...it caused problems.  That's why
> someone complained!>>
>
> Which goes to my point again: the difficulty arose due to the recipient not
> being equipped to handle Usenet-newsfeed level traffic on an electronic mail
> channel. Which, of course, they shouldn't be expected to handle; they are
> two different systems with different characteristics.

Sorry...it still caused problems.  Q. E. D.

--
Stan Sieler                                          [log in to unmask]
                                     http://www.allegro.com/sieler.html