In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:03:38 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > sf > wrote:

> > > Admittedly the attribution was borked, but I read it as calling your
> > > attention to the post.
> >
> > No, the attributions were fine. Go back and look if you are interested.

> > To go into "lecture" mode, I think this is part of the problem with poor
> > trimming of posts. People just get in the habit of ignoring what is
> > left in, since often much is irrelevant and unnecessary. But Blake
> > carefully left in what actually applied, and I suspect that Om just
> > skipped it. It was a little complicated, because Blake wasn't
> > responding to what was immediately above, or even above that, but what
> > was three levels above.
>
> I should have said the proper attributes were *missing*.

No, they were all there, in Blake's post. The following posts got
mangled, though.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA