Janet Baraclough wrote:
Pennyaline wrote:

I'm not blaming each person who posted it.

Your first post clearly did, weasel.

I had to go back to my first post on this and look up what a weasel I
am. Here's what I wrote:

In less than an hour, this message from madgardner has been posted by three people. So they're having an outbreak of overkill in Faerie Holler now?

Please. Please. I understand that some of you like to read her posts, but must we paper the joint with them? Once is enough.

And as you can see, I questioned the pondered an outbreak of overkill in
Faerie Holler. Clearly, *that* points to madgardner and no one else.
What followed was a plea to those who passed the message on to
recognize that once was enough. However, I did overlook the possibility
that each of you was not aware that she had made the same request to
anyone else.

Is that weasel caliber? I don't think so.



I'm blaming the individual
who asked multiple people to post it for her. Why it was necessary for
her to have three people put it up is a puzzler. But it fits right in
with her protracted announcements and updates about her pending absence
from newsgroups, as though she *had* to explain that she wouldn't be
"here," as though something might abort if she didn't keep us abreast of
the sturm und drang, or if we didn't notice.
So it actually is not analogous to just mailing a letter, and it cannot
be blamed on variances in time and space and the speed of message
propagation across the 'net.

The letter analogy referred to three forwarded messages to usenet.
Not to private email.

The letter analogy referred to the lack of control the letter sender has
once said letter has been dropped into the box, as to when it will reach
its destination and when it will be read:
We live in different countries,
use different isps and news servers, so our posts are propagated round
usenet groups in different time zones and routes. That's the nature of
the medium. It's like putting a letter in the postbox to send it across
the world, and being unable to control what time the postman delivers
it, or what time the recipient will get home to read it.

Thus, the letter analogy referred to having no control and essentially
no responsibility for an item once it is sent. This was not the case
with the message she requested be posted in absentia. She sent it to
three people and asked each to send it to the newsgroup. It did not
involve random newsgroup arrival times.



It's like mailing three letters, each
promising the recipient that he or she is the only one

Marilyn did NOT make any such promise. Don't falsify the content of
an email you did not receive ; it makes you look dishonest.

I cannot falsify the content of something I have not seen. I can only
exaggerate/confabulate/make my best guess about its content through the
actions of the recipients. It might make me wrong, but it cannot make me
look dishonest.



M has a decade long history on this group, and many here regard her
as a great asset to it, for her unique gardening posts but also for her
good humour and generosity, so are willing to cut her some slack.

Okay.



A
woman with poor eyesight is alone and faced with huge personal stress
in all major areas of her life. In such circumstances anyone might be
excused a small slip in their private email.

Agreed, she has problems to deal with. It's good to remember though that
we all have our cross to bear and it is less than heroic to cite our
troubles as a defense when things go awry.