David said:
What does all the crap you quoted have to do with your question?
Actually Ruth said absolutely NOTHING in her reply. She incorrectly
positioned her signature delimiter line (aka sigdash) at the *top* of her
reply. Only the start-of-signature delimiter line ("-- \n") is defined.
*There is no end-of-signature delimiter line*. Since the sigdash was at the
top of her post, EVERYTHING in her reply became part of her signature, and
signatures do not carry the body of a post (and often get stripped out by
newsreaders since they usually are ego-stroking or off-topic fluff, similar
to a forum option to strip avatars and sigs from threads).
NONE of the lines in her post were absent of the quoting character. That
means her entire reply was the quoting of posts by OTHERS. It was ALL
quoted. That means NONE of it was her own content added to her reply.
Despite that she is *replying* to an existing thread, she also omitted the
"Re:" prefix in the Subject header. The inclusion of the References header
proves she replied to an existing thread rather than start her own new
thread.
- Sigdash at the top.
o Nothing is in the body.
o Everything is in the signature.
o Signature content often gets ignored or stripped.
- Every line is quoted.
o No new content is identified as added by Ruth in her reply post.
- Missing "Re:" in the Subject header.
o Ruth replied to a thread. She did not start a new thread.
I don't how many of the above problems were caused by Ruth or by her use of
Microsoft's webnews-for-dummies gateway to Usenet (aka newsgroups) to
pretend they have a forum. From Microsoft's penchant for misplacing the
sigdash at the top (due to top-posting and then placing the signature
immediately after the newly added content but before the quoted content), I
suspect that infraction is Microsoft's fault.
