I like your idea. I might start doing that as well. I normally delete a
lot of the quoting that doesn't pertain or makes the wessage bulky, and
when I do, your method would really clarify things, especially when quoting
from multiple sources such as your 'Little Grey Men" example below. I
noticed the good 'Doc' thinks they're green. But I truly think the
'X-Files' showed us otherwise. hehe
After re-reading my message, from it's return trip through the list server
(cast-in-concrete) my tone sounded a lot harder than it was really
intended, and figured I'd get flamed. Thanks for your gracious reply.
At 03:13 AM 9/7/98 +0000, you wrote:
>I agree. However after two or three e-letters the nesting of
>greater-than-signs can become confusing also.
>People who work in universities, labs and government funded
>science centers have been using the InterNet for many years, most
>likely long before the advent of the 'web', back when it was
>virtually all Unix e-mail or ftp sites.
>Over the years, I have found through experimentation it is
>easier to read multiply nested dialogs by inserting beginning
>paragraph-block-tags denoted with authors' initials, such as:
>...and Walt boldly drives his search model forward...
>We are visiting, nobody is listening on our igsilvlat waves and we
>are being sneaky too....
>Greater-than-signs ">" are what my program generates, so that is
>In this manner with frugal editing one may retain thread dialog
>context, and everyone knows who said what.
>At the top of the thread as a further courtesy, I place a marquee,
>>>WW : Walt Williams,
>>>LGM : Little Grey Men
>>>RS : Ray Shank
>Walt Williams, 98.09.07
Ray Shank - firstname.lastname@example.org
Argus Observatory EM26eh