🚀 go-pugleaf

On 6 Dec, in article <4a59gd$l74@gryphon.looking-glass.org>
     bnb@gryphon.demon.co.uk "Brian Blackmore" wrote:

> [ reguarding funny quote lines ]
>
> There are actually several reasons I could quote for *not* using quote
> lines of the style User>
>
> 1. Its pushes the orginal article out the way quicker.

I mentioned that.  I agree.  TINSTAAFL.

> 2. It makes writting code to rewrap an article almost impossible and

Rubbish (IMHO).  Whether you writt code or write it, it's
a SMoP.  You merely need to identify the presence of several
lines containing something like BB> rather than >.

> 3. It doesn't look right when it itself is quoted.

IYHO.  Not in my HO.

> 4. It doesn't match with what son of RFC1036 recommends.. to quote..

This is the only one of your points that has any validity
for me.

> 5. I don't like it :-)

:-)  I do.

> 6. IMHO it is visually displeasing.

See 5.  You and Richard don't like it.  Rob and I do.
Numerous abstentions of unknown inclination.  Hung jury?
Retrial?

> I should also note that I personally don't know of any newsreaders that can
> actually do this type of quoting, everyone who I've ever seen do it who I've
> asked has done it manually.

So?

Summary: much of the argument hinges around emotive issues.
I don't base my support for this style on visual or aesthetic
qualities.  In posts with multiple quote levels it helps the
reader identify which author wrote what.  I think that helps
avoid confusion (haven't you ever seen flame wars that start
"I DID NOT WRITE THAT"?).

I'm sorry that you find such quoting offensive, and as a
gesture I've used the more traditional style in this post.

--
John Washington