Sorry, but you're just plain wrong.
In what here has been a dialogue (2): the need for pretty blue lines to separate out, merely sequential quote + reply - seems a bit formatory, don't it?Actually, they don't show up as blue lines, but just indents, in my browser.
But, to get to your real point: No, it doesn't -- it is a very real need.
In fact, I find it easier (having now explored the new add-in to the Symbol menu) to just use my boilerplate file and cut&paste the quote pairs. The split block seems to massage all the \ufffds. That might.. even be useful in above peculiar duo-thread IF you really are going to reply to each bloody thing. Yes, I can see some utility but..Two things: First, I was talking about *reading* the stuff, not writing it.
Second, what *you* find easier isn't necessarily what *I* find easier.
All I'm saying is - there's no confusion about who is being quoted and, the reply: above. IMhO. Some things are optional.Well, bully for *you*... But the reason I asked for sensible quoting was precisely because I *do* find Khasim's mile-after-mile-of-one-sentence-paragraphs style confusing; sometimes I *do* lose track of whose text it is I'm seeing.
And for writing in a public forum, *clarity* is NOT "optional" AFAICS.