On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:53:19 -0700, Dan Abel wrote:

> 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?

apparently we're in the higher realm of the mathematics of posting.

your pal,
blake