On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 15:01:34 -0800, sf wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:52:34 -0500, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>>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.
>>
> You starting to sound like a status quo conservative.

substitute 'set in my ways' for 'conservative' and that's pretty much
right.

your pal,
blake