From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,84be9c5a380874d5
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-03 05:20:07 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hub1.nntpserver.com!easynews!crtntx1-snh1.gtei.net!chcgil2-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen
From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: gprof with gnat
Date: 3 May 2002 07:01:23 -0500
Organization: LJK Software
Message-ID: <OX8Js6FlvLiU@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <3CCD2328.C5722FC3@epfl.ch> <aanpmm$9td$1@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
 <3CCF8702.A7537851@epfl.ch> <5ee5b646.0205010433.6fc30656@posting.google.com>
 <3CD0E169.88A260A0@epfl.ch> <5ee5b646.0205020353.650900e5@posting.google.com>
 <3CD237A7.B91E6F32@epfl.ch>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1020427289 6276 192.135.80.34 (3 May 2002
 12:01:29 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 12:01:29 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:23490
Date: 2002-05-03T07:01:23-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <3CD237A7.B91E6F32@epfl.ch>, "Charles Fr. Rey" <charlesfr.rey@epfl.ch> writes:

> BTW, I think it's sometime necessary to leave the original message
> quoted, so if you save it or whatever else, you got the whole thing in
> one message, and you don't need to read the 15 levels of previous
> messages "manually". I also agree that unnecessary text in a reply
> should be removed.

That seems to be at least two (contradictory) viewpoints.  It
is not possible to leave something intact and also remove parts
of it.

> For example, this message is a perfect message (in the form): reply
> message on top, only two levels of quotes, and a newly arrived ngreader
> can understand what we're talking about. Don't you agree ?

Certainly not (if you only wanted Robert's response, I presume you
would have used email).  That to which you are responding should
_precede_ your response, not follow it.  If that seems like people
have to wade through too much to get to your comment, then you
are overquoting.