--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, Marco
Cimarosti <marco.cimarosti@...>
wrote:

> Etaonsh wrote:
> > Marco: My replies are

distinguished

> > from the quotes by the lack of

'>'s

> > between lines.
> > I am flitting between tv

internet

> > and public computers at present

and,

> > in the former, '>'s are needed

to

> > create blank lines, and the line
> > length is restricted by the

system.

>
> I see. The main problem is that,

when your system splits an original
quoted

> line into several shorter lines,

it adds the ">" symbol only at the

> beginning of the first short line:
>
> Foo Bar wrote:
> > The horse is
> white.
> No, you foo,
> the horse is
> black.
> > And I can
> demonstrate it
> very easily.
> There's nothing
> to demonstrate:
> it's black.
> Richard
>
> You see the problem?
>

Not at present.

>

who said "demonstrate it..."?

>

'Foo Bar.'

>

Who said "There's

> nothing..."?
>

'Richard.'

>

Neither line starts with a ">".

>

No, but 'Foo Bar'(the quotee)'s
paragraph does.

>
> If you don't have a better

options, you should perhaps create
those blank

> lines starting by ">"'s:
>
> Foo Bar wrote:
> > The horse is
> white.
> >
> No, you foo,
> the horse is
> black.
> >
> > And I can
> demonstrate it
> very easily.
> >
> There's nothing
> to demonstrate:
> it's black.
> >
> Richard
>
> It's not ideal, but its anyway a

visual little help of the boundaries
in the

> text.
>

I used to put a double '>' between
my replies to quotes for visual aid
but perceived that it was
time-consuming and not stricly
necessary.

>

Richard