On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:14:03 -0700, sf wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 06:59:55 -0700 (PDT), Bobo Bonobo®
> > wrote:
>
>>On Jul 22, 8:30*am, blake murphy > wrote:
>>>
> <snip>
>>> > One could
>>> > omit the original poster's sig, but leaving it in (At least the name.
>>> > Other parts of the sig can be snipped) is a reminder to anyone else
>>> > reading it who was being answered. *The replying poster's sig is
>>> > automatically tacked onto the end by newsreaders. *Since I use
>>> > GoogleGroups, I have to add it manually. *Again, at the very end.
>>>
>>> why? *anyone can tell from the beginning of the message who you are
>>> replying to. *you mean to tell me you *make a special effort* to include
>>> the original poster's name after your reply? *how foolish.
>>
>>Not deleting doesn't require special effort.
> <snip
>>
>>Oh, and if you had read carefully you'd have seen that it was MY sig
>>that I had to add manually because of using a web-based newsreader.
>>>
>>> blake
>>
>>--Bryan
>
> I still don't understand why you won't keep his signature under his
> own text instead of making it appear under your text.

it doesn't make much sense, does it?

your pal,
blake