From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (Shmuel+gen@patriot.net)
Date: Tue Aug 10 2004 - 14:37:02 CDT
In <Pine.LNX.4.53.0408101011330.19153@a.shell.peak.org>, on 08/10/2004
at 10:16 AM, John Stanley <stanley@peak.org> said:
>You have a penchant for stating the obvious non-sequitor. We aren't
>talking about the precursor.
Then what is this "starts out whith" of which you prate?
>Wrong. According to the proposed definition, a followup CONTAINS a
>references header. If one has to add that header, then it does not
>already contain one, and is thus not a followup.
It "starts out" with whatever is in the protoarticle. If the
protoarticle contains a References header line then the article will
be a followup.
>Which fact is contrary?
Your claim of circularity is contrary to fact.
>it is a better definition than the proposed circular one.
There is no proposed circular definition.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)