I apologize for this, as it is indeed bad technology of the Micro$oft kind. Specificall,y at my workplace we are required (!) to use MS Outho^H^Hlook for all mail. Since Outlook does not follow anything similar to standard usage (it assumes your followup will appear *before* the replied-to message, apparently SOP for business mail) it screwed up my reply. This is not this frist time this has happened, and I can find few remedies short of manually entering the '>'. This is problematic since Outlook inserts an attiribution on every new parapgrah, a 'feature' that can't be disabled.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Pasco [SMTP:pasco@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, August 22, 1997 5:48 PM
To: xanadu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Plagiarism? Or bad technology?
Something is wrong here.
This morning I posted a message to this list "Re: Transclusion issues"
which began with the words,
> Perhaps I am still missing something in my understanding about
> transclusion.
Imagine my surprise when I found exactly the same words posted this
afternoon with no trace of my authorship remaining (my name was not
even mentioned in the subsequent post), and the header
From: Jay Osako <josako@xxxxxxxxxxx>
I am concerned that casual readers might believe those words to have
been written by Mr. Osako, since after all, he didn't say who else wrote
them.
It seems that Mr. Osako pasted my text into his mail, without inserting
either "Rich Pasco wrote:" or the ">" marks in front of my quotation, as
is the evolving custom on the internet.
I do not ascribe malice to Mr. Osako, but I am surprised that in an
organization like Xanadu, whose ascribed purpose is crediting original
authors, something like this would slip through the cracks.
My request of all participants in this discussion, is that we
appropriately credit the original authors when text is being quoted.
Thank you.
- Rich<<application/ms-tnef>>