"Pete Stockdale" wrote in message
...

I consider snipping to be more offensive than repeating the original post
unless it was of an oversize or offensive nature.


1. Failure to snip wastes my time

2. By it's nature much of this group's traffic is Q&A, or transfer of
specific information, not debate. Snipping to make clear the point being
replied to is wise.

3. Plonk

pk

On 14/8/08 00:23, in article , "Pete
Stockdale" wrote:


"Sacha" wrote in message
...
All groups have their own customs. On this one, full repetition of
irrelevant parts of the post being replied to, are snipped, customarily
snip
I consider snipping to be more offensive than repeating the original post
unless it was of an oversize or offensive nature.

Regards
Pete
www.thecanalshop.com


In this group, it's usually quite easy to snip the irrelevant bits from a
post because it's so often a specific question or answer that matters and
that can be isolated. On other groups that might not be the case.
Personally, I prefer this group's custom of snipping because trawling
through yards of old material to read one sentence at the end is irritating
and silly. In the end, I find I avoid posts from the people who do that.
So, obviously my opinion is different to yours but that's the way of
newsgroups, too.

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon

lid writes
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:33:07 +0100, K wrote:

Snipped

[QUOTED IN FULL FOR GOOGLE ARCHIVE PURPOSES]

What on earth for? How does it benefit anyone to have *two* copies of my
post archived?
--
Kay

"Sacha" wrote in message
...

In this group, it's usually quite easy to snip the irrelevant bits from a
post because it's so often a specific question or answer that matters and
that can be isolated. On other groups that might not be the case.
Personally, I prefer this group's custom of snipping because trawling
through yards of old material to read one sentence at the end is
irritating
and silly. In the end, I find I avoid posts from the people who do that.
So, obviously my opinion is different to yours but that's the way of
newsgroups, too.

--
Fairly stated - back to glasshouse for me then.
I am now well on with my summer tidy and pot on.
The need for watering keeps interrupting !
Regards
Pete
www.thecanalshop.com

"K" wrote in message
...
lid writes
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:33:07 +0100, K wrote:

Snipped

[QUOTED IN FULL FOR GOOGLE ARCHIVE PURPOSES]

What on earth for? How does it benefit anyone to have *two* copies of my
post archived?
--
Kay


In case one gets lost? ;-)

On Aug 14, 12:23*am, "Pete Stockdale"
wrote:
"Sacha" wrote in message

...

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.
--

I do not agree that my argument does not hold water.
There are usually no parts of a post that are irrelevant.
I have seen no more snipping here than anywhere else on usenet.
I consider snipping to be more offensive than repeating the original post
unless it was of an oversize or offensive nature.

Regards
Petewww.thecanalshop.com

The problem with your comments is that if I were to adopt the no
snipping suggestion, I would have my head bitten off on other groups -
so silly though, isn't it, surely these groups are for recreation only
and we shouldn't care if one snips and one doesn't?

Judith

"Judith in France" wrote in message
news:19de4e21-2e87-4cc6-8eb8-
I do not agree that my argument does not hold water.
There are usually no parts of a post that are irrelevant.
I have seen no more snipping here than anywhere else on usenet.
I consider snipping to be more offensive than repeating the original post
unless it was of an oversize or offensive nature.

Regards
Petewww.thecanalshop.com

The problem with your comments is that if I were to adopt the no
snipping suggestion, I would have my head bitten off on other groups -
so silly though, isn't it, surely these groups are for recreation only
and we shouldn't care if one snips and one doesn't?

Judith


Interestingly - in a moment of total boredom, I surveyed the last dozen or
so headers in this group.
Only one of the first reply posters snipped anything of the original post !
As you say - who cares
Its lovely and sunny out - but the glasshouse is in short stay mode at the
moment (overbearing).

Regards
Pete
www.thecanalshop.com

"Judith in France" wrote in message
...

we shouldn't care if one snips and one doesn't?

Judith




If i see a post with a zilllion quoted lines i rarely read it, never mid
answer.

pk

On 14/8/08 11:10, in article , "PK"
wrote:

snip ;-)
If i see a post with a zilllion quoted lines i rarely read it, never mid
answer.

pk

I'm with you on that one. I think UK posters got used to snipping because
they had dial up and paid for every second they were online. Local calls in
USA are free, so downloading loads of old material and the time it takes,
wasn't of importance in US-centric groups. But when I first came to urg I
was pretty new at the newsgroup 'code' and got shouted at very loudly for
not snipping, until I got the hang of things!

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon

In message , K
writes

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.

Most often this quoting of whole posts is just done carelessly as a bad
habit, ie no sensible snipping, although this group seems well-behaved
in this respect.
--
Gordon H

In message , Sacha
writes

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.

I have noticed that this group is better at sniping than others to which
I contribute. I typed that and saw the Freudian error, but left it
for your amusement. ;-)
Worse still, I almost ended the sentence with a preposition.

I think that once someone starts making threats of legal action it cuts
against the spirit of newsgroups.

IANAL, but for such an action to be successful I expect that it would
have to be proved that there was some loss of income resulting from the
plagiarising of professional and specialised information not available
elsewhere.
I have contributed to groups where people have used their professional
knowledge for the benefit of the group, and this is fairly normal.
There is another aspect to this of course, and threats of action could
be made even when there is no case to answer, if the accuser is wealthy
enough not to care whether they win or lose!
It happened to me, and I have his email to prove it!
--
Gordon H

In message , PK
writes

1. Failure to snip wastes my time

2. By it's nature much of this group's traffic is Q&A, or transfer of
specific information, not debate. Snipping to make clear the point
being replied to is wise.
3. Plonk

This group is a good example of fairly strict snipping, which is one
reason I enjoy it!
--
Gordon H

In message , PK
writes

"Judith in France" wrote in message
...

we shouldn't care if one snips and one doesn't?

Judith

If i see a post with a zilllion quoted lines i rarely read it, never
mid answer.

pk
I just don't see those posts because I block all above a certain number
of lines. In some groups it has to be restricted to one page.
--
Gordon H

In message ,
lid writes
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:33:07 +0100, K wrote:

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.

[QUOTED IN FULL FOR GOOGLE ARCHIVE PURPOSES]

That's pretty stupid! The other poster wasn't using X-No-Archive!

No need to shout, either.
--
Gordon H

On 14/8/08 12:45, in article , "Gordon H"
wrote:

In message , Sacha
writes

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.

I have noticed that this group is better at sniping than others to which
I contribute. I typed that and saw the Freudian error, but left it
for your amusement. ;-)
Worse still, I almost ended the sentence with a preposition.

Up with which we will not put! I made the same typo originally but being a
fully paid up coward, I corrected mine!

I think that once someone starts making threats of legal action it cuts
against the spirit of newsgroups.

Depends on the situation. I had to take actual legal action against someone
who told an entire group that I had committed one actual crime and had done
something else affecting one of my children. Both were totally untrue and
potentially harmful.

IANAL, but for such an action to be successful I expect that it would
have to be proved that there was some loss of income resulting from the
plagiarising of professional and specialised information not available
elsewhere.

Loss of reputation is actionable, too. What I think is an interesting
question is whether the original poster of bad information or e.g Garden
Banter would be held responsible if it is used by someone reading it on e.g.
Garden Banter, who loses their year's crop of whatever or nukes their entire
garden.


I have contributed to groups where people have used their professional
knowledge for the benefit of the group, and this is fairly normal.
There is another aspect to this of course, and threats of action could
be made even when there is no case to answer, if the accuser is wealthy
enough not to care whether they win or lose!
It happened to me, and I have his email to prove it!

Now Gordon, you're bringing grievances here that do not belong in this
group. Please let's not do that in urg! Otherwise your typo will not appear
to be a typo, will it? ;-)


--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon