Lynton:
> Hi Alan,
>
> You will notice that the post that you answered did not mention your name.
> I was commenting on the comments in a particular post.  Anyhow, to clarify
> (or attempt to, anyway)...

David:
Thanks for pointing this out, Lynton.

Just a gentle reminder to all, but, please take some care
on making sure that the identity of the author being quoted
remains clearly attibuted. Part of this practice also involves
trimming down the quoted sections to the applicable part
being responded to, as opposed to responding at the top of
an article, and including the entire long text that is being
responded to. The above characteristics are desirable from
an accuracy of attibution concern, as well as an easy and
clear trail left in the archives.

One method of responding to posts that appears to survive
various quoting mechanisms of email clients involves prefacing
your reponse with your own name, while clearly identifying
the one being responded to. For instance:

>John Doe wrote:
> This is my quote, and mine alone. If you decide to quote me
> on it, please send $50 in monopoly money to:
> John Doe
> P.O. Box 00000
> Atlanta, GA 30080

David Mayne:
Monopoly money is hard to come by these days, would a crate of
wooden nickels suffice ?

That way, when an email client inserts a quotation character,
it still remains fairly clear who is being quoted (as long as
the responder leaves said identification intact, of course).
The above style of quoting is put forth just as a suggestion and not
a requirement - the point is to make it easy to accurately
identify who says what.

Alas, I have not always been careful enough myself with the
above concerns, but let's all please try to strive to do a better
job with this in the future.

Thanks,

David
[log in to unmask]