Xref: utzoo news.newusers.questions:1116 news.groups:15951 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!rpi!tale From: tale@cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) Newsgroups: news.newusers.questions,news.groups Subject: Citing .signatures (was Re: new Pink Floyd newsgroup) Message-ID: <`!D+R-@rpi.edu> Date: 28 Dec 89 04:46:03 GMT References: <423@mirsa.UUCP> <475@sci34hub.UUCP> <89346.135842TAR@MAINE.BITNET> <507@sci34hub.UUCP> Followup-To: news.newusers.questions Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY Lines: 15 In article <507@sci34hub.UUCP> gary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) goes on a bit of an excursion from the Pink Floyd group argument into a paragraph which complains mightily about some .signature tom-foolery perpetuated by Thom Rounds. A rather odd flame of this appears under the original subject in alt.flame. I am here reposting a somewhat milder version of the question I would sincerely like answered. Why do people quote .signatures in follow- ups when they are not making any comment regarding them? I honestly do not see the point. Thanks to those who provide some insight into this phenomenon. Dave -- (setq mail '("tale@cs.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))