The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:


"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message m
from Estee contains these words:

Ok - new photo with flowers attached.

You may not send pictures or attachments to this newsgroup.

That is so. However, Estee did not send his attachment to this newsgroup.
He submitted it precisely correctly.

I disagree. From her language, Estee appears to believe she is sending
pictures and attachments direct to this newsgroup. Her posting source
(gardenbanter) reinforces the impression of her inexperience at usenet,
newsgroups and their protocols.

If you had not snipped the context surreptitiouosly, other readers would
have been able to access the picture. As it is, they will now have to turn
back to an earlier post from Estee to get at the URL.

Sigh. My point was about posting pictures, not plant identification. In
that context, repeating the plant ID url was irrelevant. There was
nothing surreptitious about the omission, it's an example of correct
editing.

As usual, a post from you pontificating about netiquette/post editing
serves only to illustrate the extent of your ignorance.

Janet.