"quasi" <email@example.com> wrote in message news:firstname.lastname@example.org... > quasi wrote: > >Mike Terry wrote: > >>quasi wrote: > >>>Pubkeybreaker wrote: > >>>>Mike Terry wrote: > >>>>>Pubkeybreaker wrote: > >>>>>>>david wrote: > >>... > >> > >>Quasi - please do not edit multiple responses and mix up the > >>quoting to make it look like I replied to Pubkeybreaker when > >>I didn't... > > > >Actually, Pubkeybreaker's second response was out of context > >but was clearly a reply to your reply to the OP, so I tried > >to restore the _relevant_ context even if slightly out of > >order. > > > >I think the _text_ of your response makes it clear that > >you were responding to the OP, not to Pubkeybreaker. > > > >In any case, I don't think I caused any confusion by the > >placement of your response since its content was only > >peripheral to the issue at hand. > > But I guess what I could have done if I wanted to include > all the separate replies is _indicate_ that your reply > was in response to the OP. In other words, for the > header, I could have shown it this way: > > quasi wrote: > >Pubkeybreaker wrote: > >>Mike Terry wrote [in reply to the OP]: > >>>Pubkeybreaker wrote: > >>>>david [the OP] wrote: > > I think that would have created the right context while > making it completely clear that your response was in reply > to the OP, not to Pubkeybreaker. > > The situation where a reply has to be spliced in doesn't > come up much, but in the future, if the situation does > arise, I'll provide a clarifying note to indicate which > post a spliced-in reply is in reference to. > > quasi
Thanks - I agree there was no real confusion, but there should be a good way of framing your reply - this seems logical?:
Mike Terry wrote: > ... (whatever I wrote)
Pubkeybreaker wrote [in response]: > ... (whatever he wrote)
... (whatever else you add)
Anyway, no big deal, upon reflection I guess you're right about what the OP intended! Mike.