In article , Janet Baraclough
writes
The message . com
from "La puce" contains these words:
How can I give
evidence of your rude posts in return when they have been removed after
3 days? The link is no longer available,

Fortunately, it is.. I reposted it in full in the phormium thread,
and made sure it would get archived .
Nice try, bad luck.


Just to step in here -

I can vouch for LaP and the fact that she is neither a troll nor
unpleasant. However, she is French

Unfortunately, this does seem to result in more than the fair share of
misunderstandings in the two dimensional world of usenet posts

And, Helene - your newsreader is being a bit remiss in keeping correct
attributions. I presume you are using google or something similar? My
work has - for what its worth - long been settled on Outlook, etc.
(There are numerous advantages to it in the office situation - but
newsgroups is not one of them). However, I continue to use Turnpike for
news and personal mail. Can't you do that?

That said, whilst the attributions are not right - I think the level of
complaint is a bit unjustified. The single remaining attribution that
is left on LaP's posts might - at a quick glance - look as if it is
saying that one person wrote all of the post. However, it is pretty
clear that this is not the case once you notice that the different bits
of the post have different levels of indentation and line prefixes (and
maybe even colour) - and the attribution itself only matches one of
these.

So, a bit of all round backing off would seem sensible here, imo, of
course.

--
regards andyw

newsb wrote:
Just to step in here -

Glad you did. I thank you (and isn't it great we can say 'thank you' in
here ;o)

I can vouch for LaP and the fact that she is neither a troll nor
unpleasant. However, she is French

Tst tst ...

(snip)

However, I continue to use Turnpike for
news and personal mail. Can't you do that?

I'm looking into it now. I'm fed up with this beta rubbish googling
thang. Pages expire very quickly. It's no good. I'll have a word with
my IT chap. I'm not sure where to start see ...

The message
from newsb contains these words:

That said, whilst the attributions are not right - I think the level of
complaint is a bit unjustified.

Excuse me? My "level of complaint" was in another thread, a simple
reply-post to her saying "No, I did not write that, please mind your
attributions".

That unleashed from Puce a diatribe of denials , claiming the problem
was at my end, blaming me for her error, and making wildly stupid and
wrong accusations about other posts of mine (and another poster), which
Puce specified. Google's archives prove she was utterly wrong on every
count. She has refused ample opportunity to check and recognise her
errors and retract them, but instead, insists on repeating lies.

Trolls often insist on endlessly repeating the same lies in the hope
that gullible people who don't check the facts for themselves, will
start to believe them. Puce continues to lie through her teeth in the
face of google's archived evidence.

Refuting unjustified, abusive, repeated lies about my posts , does
not seem "a bit unjustified" to me.

Janet