"DavidM" wrote in message
...
Gail Futoran wrote:
My PSA *followed* your post in the thread, but was not in *response* to
your
post. ... When someone responds to another person, they include what the
OP (original
poster) wrote or some part of it and author identification, as above.
But
anyone can post something "new" to an existing thread without
specifically
responding to anyone else. That's how USENET
works.

As far as I can see the only people here are those waiting for r.p.m, and
those that have ruined r.p over the last couple of years. We probably all
know how USENET works.

I disagree. First, new people show up all the time. I've seen posters
refer to "this blog" or "this forum" or "how do I subscribe to your group?"
(for those posting from Google groups), etc. You can't assume everyone
"here" is intimately familar with USENET. Or with computers or the
Internet, for that matter.

Second, most of the USENET newsgroups I've posted to I've lurked in first,
for weeks on average, sometimes months, before posting. Many people don't
bother. They jump in feet first having no idea what's going on. Sympathetic
regulars will often try to help them learn.

The way I use USENET is that you
reply to the OP if your comment is not relevant to the current thread.

Third, by NOT including quoted material, people have no idea what you're
responding to. Netiquette suggests that if you're responding or replying to
someone else's post, you include at least some portion of their post for
reference or context. By not including any portion of anyone else's post, I
was indicating new content in an existing thread.

Fourth, my comment WAS relevant to the current thread since the current
thread is about a proposed moderated rec.ponds, and there will be a formal
discussion at some point, and as an interested party I wanted anyone new to
newsgroups or the Google archives or rec.ponds or the current discussions to
have a place they could go to do their own research, if they were
interested. Not everyone knows about Google groups archives.

I.e., I was trying to provide information that, by the way, could make me
look like an idiot (based on dumb things I've said in newsgroups) as well as
support anything I said here or elsewhere.

You replied to my message in the main thread, that's the reason I
questioned it's meaning.

See above. I did not reply to your message, I posted within a thread. If I
intended to reply to YOUR post, I would have included part of your post or
at least your email addy for reference.

There have been a fair amount of accusations made during the discussion
in the past two weeks where one person asserts another person posted
something, and the assertion was not true. Checking the Google archives
is one way of sorting out the truth.

Hopefully Big-8 will see through all the crap and give us r.p.mod. After
that, if it's not pond related, it does not matter.

Hopefully the Big-8 has more experience in USENET than you and I put
together.

[snip]

Gail
rec.ponder since April 2003