Chris, it may not be obvious from your viewpoint, but your frequent
policy of interjecting your rebuttals within posted text is not good.
First, it allows you to interrupt the authors train of logic and
render their argument less powerful.  (I feel as though you did this
to my previous posting.)  No one except you can read the posting in
its original form, and hence get the original intent of the author.
Secondly, this gives you a power over the list which no other member
has.  If you intend to 'govern' the list in a position of power, this
is fine, but if you really only intend to be a 'watchdog' for flame
messages, then this is not necessary.  You have to decide which
position to take.
 
Ron
--
Ron 'Coyote' Lussier               /|                  Software Transformation
[log in to unmask]                    / |         1601 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd, #100
(408) 973-8081 x315              /__\                      Cupertino, CA 95014
 
[All you have to do to read the posting in its original form is to
remove what's inside the brackets.  Unless you're implying that
I alter messages.  "interrupting the author's train of logic and
render their argument less powerful" presupposes there's an argument.
And in the vast majority of issues (probably >98%) all interjections
are the answer to a question - which is hardly an interruption.  Unless
you prefer I break the train of logic by duplicating the message
and partial quoting.  And one wonders why this particular issue matters
after being called names in public no matter which viewpoint is taken.
 
I intend to be a watchdog, and answer the questions that I can.
And in longish postings, or simply for context, this will require
the occasional insertion.
 
While I can try to "moderate" my use of "[]", given the time I'm
allocating to the FML (psroff 3.0 PL14 is already a month overdue),
the policy, and the fact that bandwidth costs, "[]" is, in the final
analysis, non-negotiable.]
 
[Posted in FML issue 0333]