On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:03:39 -0800, Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:42:29 -0800, sf wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:56:10 -0500, blake murphy
>>> > wrote:
>
>>>>in any case, people could edit better (including taking care with
>>>>attributions), but it's not a major source of irritation for me.
>>>
>>> It's a major problem for me. Obviously they have no idea who said
>>> what. If that's the case, then just cut out everything except what
>>> you're responding to.
>>
>> well, all i can say is that you're swimming against the tide, here.
>
> I'm glad you understood what was being posted. I sure didn't. It
> almost sounded like sf was saying that people should trim their posts so
> that their replies make sense.
>
> "Sense" sounds like a good thing to me.

i was referring to her advocacy of top-posting.

your pal,
blake