On Sun, 11 May 2008 16:23:31 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote:
"Someone else" wrote in message
On Sun, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
"Someone else" wrote in message
On Sat, 10 May 2008 13:12:01 +0000 (GMT), jl
I wouldn't get to hung up about the Spanish Armada - the
british fleet was quite small in those days, as were the ships.
I'm not "hung up" about it. I refer in particular to that time period
because that is when the Irish forests had a huge amount of damage
done to them and I am responding to questions about the deforestation
of Ireland...
You really do have a problem.
In your opinion.
Yes, but I note that I'm not the only one with that opinion.
You answer questions not asked and make
repsonses to what you think you read in other's posts that were never
there
in the first place.
In the instance of the 'question' of the deforestation of Ireland, you are
answering a question that were NEVER asked.
Which question, in particular, and explicitly stated, is that?
viz: "I am responding to questions about the deforestation of Ireland..."
You wrote that. No question about the deforestation of Ireland has been
asked in this thread. You may choose to dribble on about it but it was not
asked.
There has been NO such question
except presumably in your own mind! You have decided to take a contrary
view to what other people have chosen to post, but your contrariness does
not mean that any question has ever been asked nor does it mean that your
posts are relevant to the OPs interest.
Is there some law that specifies that in usenet I must repeatedly
refer to the original poster's point?
Only the sort of 'law' any competent undergraduates should know. It works
like this: "TV documentaries and travelogues reveal a lot of lush "green" in
those (meaning Ireland and Britain) countrysides but a relative scarcity of
trees. Is it climate? Too windy in Ireland? Sheep and/or other livestock?
Discuss"
Read the statement, understand what the statement is about, do research on
the topic, decide which information is pertinent, write a response and
provide evidence to support your stance.
You would rate a fail because you didn't understand the statement and went
on to discuss something unrelated.
That conclusion is not logically valid. You are assuming that the
respondent you are replying to read the very first post in the thread
to begin with.
Culchie
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----