From: Nick Boalch (n.g.boalch@durham.ac.uk)
Date: Tue May 04 2004 - 11:51:33 CDT
Eivind Tagseth wrote:
>> 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.
Please don't be silly. The line count was a convenient way of expressing that
your 'summary of the pros' was really nothing of the sort.
> 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.
Well, I did suggest what I thought was a better summary, but you haven't
commented on it.
Cheers,
N.
-- Nick Boalch, Research Student School of Modern European Languages Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 5780 University of Durham Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 5770 New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/