OT: Is a sig considered spamming

Well its customary to post under (bottom post) what one is responding to. at least in the Harley groups that I frequent.

The Style of Bottom Posting The concept of bottom posting is very simple. Quote the original material you're replying to first, and then put your response beneath it, so that the answer follows the question (instead of preceding it as on the game show Jeopardy! -- one of the terms for the opposite top posting style is "Jeopardy-style posting"). But the devil is in the details... for bottom posting to work well, you have to do the quoting in the right style.

Some critics of bottom posting say they hate it because they have to scroll down to see the reply. If they do, then that's usually an indication that the quotes were not trimmed sufficiently. Unlike with top posting, where fullquotes of the original message are the norm, bottom posting is associated with careful trimming. Keep enough of the original message to give proper context to your response, but take out irrelevant things like signatures, ads, and disclaimers, as well as parts of the message that are irrelevant to your reply. Usually, what's left of the quote is well under a screenful, so no scrolling is needed to get to your reply.

Here's a sample bottom-posted reply, in this case a "pure" bottom-post because there is only one part of the message being replied to, and hence, no interleaving of replies is used. (The different coloring of parts of this message, seen if your browser supports it, represents how some of the better mail readers will display a properly-quoted message, with different colors for each level of quoting. Sometimes, signature blocks will also get a distinct color if properly delimited.)

So far you're the only one who's complained. And you've yet to answer any legitimate question I've asked. How can I take you seriously? I'll Google some of your posts to see if you're of any value and I'll be back to you with an appology if you are indeed a normal person.

"Steve Horrillo" wrote in message

---snip---

hell, just chill and move on to something else. there is nothing wrong with a link in ones signature. there has been NO PROOF posted saying there is something wrong with a link in ones signature.

g'day all

Last Thursday, Bushie signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages without disclosing your true identity.

To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter (R), and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

Subjecting you to being tracked and prosecuted.... Who would'a thunk it??

Gotta follow the rules now 'Key!!! hehehehehehe ;-)

'Key wrote:

Probably only an annoyance though, an appeal from this Utah suit would a good test. Maybe the good senator and the White House are already betting on the come that Alito to be confirmed.

I had planned on a full disclosure of both my soul and my skivvies but will hold off for the time being.

time will tell..

A few observations:

1. A lot of people are really getting carried away.
2. The more times you make Steve answer, the more times his sig with links gets displayed.
3. If Steve is contributing to the group, who cares what his sig says.
4. If Steve is posting nonsense just so his sig is visible, then that is spam.
5. Posting with a company email is dumb, unless you own the company. Bosses can be funny about you using company resources to play.
6. Do any of you own or drive a Corvette, because I haven't seen much Corvette talk lately and definitely none in this thread.
7. Night all, I got to go to bed so I can fix the power door locks in the morning.