On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:17:40 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

On 13/8/08 21:11, in article , "Pete
Stockdale" wrote:


"K" wrote in message
news

Given that the x-no-archive facility exists, then it's up to the
originator of the post to decide whether he/she wishes their post to be
archived, and quite offensive for someone else to deliberately go against
their wishes in the way that you describe.

If I were requesting my posts not to be archived, and I realised someone
was quoting them in full with the intention of having them archived, then
I would simply stop posting.


Just because a facility exists it doesn't mean that it is good practice to
take advantage of it.
Cliff and jumping off it springs to mind.

Most posts are repeated anyway, as I have with yours, in the normal course
of replying.

Regards
Pete
www.thecanalshop.com

All groups have their own customs. On this one, full repetition of
irrelevant parts of the post being replied to, are snipped, customarily, so
here your argument doesn't hold water. Of course, none of this can be
enforced and I don't think anyone has suggested that it can be but on the
whole, good manners suggest that people new to a group try to follow that
group's generally accepted ways. A journalist friend of mine has suggested
that groups or organisations which take, repeat and use the posts of others
from the group for which they are intended, may well be in breach of
intellectual copyright and that one of these days and if anyone can be
bothered, they might be open to a law suit on those grounds.

Your friend is a ****ing dickhead and you shouldn't post to the public
domain.