In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> 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?

This whole thread doesn't make sense. Someone replying to himself to
illustrate a posting style?

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA