"Janet Baraclough.." wrote in message
...
The message
from "Phil L" contains these words:


I am over it, it just seems to me that when a newcomer such as myself
dares
to give advice (and good quality advice too!),

Hah! "...over it..." and then rant. me thinks you contradict yourself.

Unfortunately, it wasn't.

Wrong Janet. The response he refers to was his initial response containing 3
websites. Unless you found them wanting, in which case it is your critique
of them, in turn which is lacking in direction.
Ok, so he could have gone all helpfully pedantic and pointed out the
grammactical oddities that david then tripped over.
But then david didn't either!
If he did err, it was to assume david's post was directed at him. But why
should he think so,why should he ask the question when he has the answers,
how would david know anything about his garden's size-- unless off line, he
and david know each other and have brought their little spate in here

Your comments and advice about post-threading
were hopelessly confused and wrong.

No they weren't. Unless you want to equate him with a net nanny who really
should have checked the facts first!!!
You know, I even had to double check if that is the real you!

David posted a response, in which he had deleted every scrap of information
as to who or what he was responding to.
That in itself would ordinarily draw out moans from net nanny's, even
though it's a thing of nothing.

Actually, having noticed how many responses to me off -late have eliminated
all evidence of me, I had assumed david was following some sort of new
trend -- which net nanny's hadn't noticed (-;

But having made such an ommission, David's eagerness for matching brevity,
whilst tripping over the OP's mixture of plurals and singulars, resulted in
a reply which could only be understood by those of us who knew what he was
getting at.

But that provided zero illumination for someone who might not. So, in
effect, apart from lack of references, David posted, saying something which,
for those in the know would equate to an unnecessary repeat --- something
you have objected to not so long ago (Doug)--- whilst explaining nothing for
those in the dark.

You have repeatedly got the wrong
end of the stick, made a complete idiot of yourself, and blamed David
for your own errors.

No he didn't. David took a shovel and kept digging. But now that he has
somehow managed to extract himself--- something which is never easy to do--
he can at least smile as he sees that though he may no longer be down there,
there are others who are.

Speaking of which, it's time for me to leave you all.
It turned out to be a much longer re-visit that planned. But then it was
interesting
BTW, for anyone interested, References wise, one way to level the playing
field between university graduates and those pigeon holed as mere workers,
is the use of a word derived from profession, e.g, professionally,
professionalism.

Bye bye

Patrick