From: Eivind Tagseth (eivindt@multinet.no)
Date: Tue May 04 2004 - 11:22:38 CDT
* Nick Boalch <n.g.boalch@durham.ac.uk> [2004-05-04 10:04:02 +0100]:
> I think this text is very slanted: you devote three lines to one of the
> reasons why prepending "Re: " may be a good idea and then the remaining
> five lines to explaining that that's 'broken'.
If it's a matter of line count, I could surely find longer synonyms and
shorten the lines. If my note doesn't cover all the nifty pro arguments
well enough on the other hand, then I'm sure those fighting _for_ "Re: "
can write a much better summary.
Eivind