On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 11:58:15 +0100, Sacha wrote:

On 2013-06-28 22:02:05 +0100, Judith said:

snip


Still - I will take the opportunity: my courgettes are doing really well!!

Could I suggest you don't cross post please?


I was replying to a message which happened to be cross-posted - therefore my
response needed to be cross-posted.

On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 17:56:56 +0100, Jake wrote:

snip


Confused. I now see another post from "Judith in England" (Poorly
Beetroot) with a purported address of .


Someone posted a message from "Judith in England" which was not from me.

On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 18:09:27 +0100, Jake
wrote:

Confused. I now see another post from "Judith in England" (Poorly
Beetroot) with a purported address of .

Soz, clicked send too quickly. The address I quoted does appear to
be
Judith's email address whereas the " one is used by
Chris Hogg.

Nowt to do with me, I'm afraid.

Though a gurgle-gropes search on the
address reveals a lot of rather unlady-like posting...

On 29/06/13 18:09, Jake wrote:

Shall I just crawl into a hole or am I missing something?

You're not missing anything edifying.

--
Rusty Hinge

On 29/06/13 18:52, Judith in England wrote:

I was replying to a message which happened to be cross-posted - therefore my
response needed to be cross-posted.

That's as logical as saying 'he put his head in the fire, so I needed to
as well'.

You don't *need* to crosspost.

Crossposting does have its uses,but I see no creditable reason to
crosspost between URG and URC

--
Rusty Hinge

On 2013-06-29 18:52:37 +0100, Judith in England said:

On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 11:58:15 +0100, Sacha wrote:

On 2013-06-28 22:02:05 +0100, Judith said:

snip


Still - I will take the opportunity: my courgettes are doing really well!!

Could I suggest you don't cross post please?


I was replying to a message which happened to be cross-posted - therefore my
response needed to be cross-posted.

Not really. It could be answered in the group in which the problem originated.
--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk

On 2013-06-30 10:23:12 +0100, Chris Hogg said:

On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 16:58:45 -0300, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 18:09:27 +0100, Jake
wrote:

Confused. I now see another post from "Judith in England" (Poorly
Beetroot) with a purported address of .

Soz, clicked send too quickly. The address I quoted does appear to
be
Judith's email address whereas the " one is used by
Chris Hogg.

Nowt to do with me, I'm afraid.

Though a gurgle-gropes search on the
address reveals a lot of rather unlady-like posting...

Nor is this reply anything to do with me, the Chris Hogg who regularly
posts here. Seems like a lot of people here have had their identities
copied! My doppelganger is using Groundhog, which I don't use.

You're right but if England Judith would stop cross-posting her
replies, this rubbish might stop appearing here. Heaven knows
newsgroups are plagued with idiots but why encourage them by giving
them a wider audience? The likelihood is that several people will just
get plonked.
--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk

On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 10:38:10 +0100, Sacha wrote:

snip


You're right but if England Judith would stop cross-posting her
replies, this rubbish might stop appearing here. Heaven knows
newsgroups are plagued with idiots but why encourage them by giving
them a wider audience? The likelihood is that several people will just
get plonked.


To be polite : get lost.

This is not *your* news group it is open to the public with an interest in
gardening like me.

If you do not want people to cross-post, I suggest that you modify the charter
to say that it is not allowed.

You would realise, if you had the ability, that most of the posts which you
incorrectly attribute to me, were not made by me at all.

When someone makes a post which is crossposted to other groups, and others
reply, then the default is, that the answers will also go to the crossposted
groups: just like Baz's, David Hill's, and Janet's replies have done (and I am
not criticising them at all - but perhaps in order to be consistent you may
wish to do so). I have made just two such posts.

If you can find a post (other than a reply) which I have made and cross-posted,
then I will be pleased to apologise.

If you can't find such a single post, then perhaps you would like to do so.



PS

From News.Individual.NET policy statement :
The e-mail addresses given in "From:", "Reply-To:", and "Sender:" should be
valid (= should not bounce because of invalidity).

I wonder, is the address valid?

I hope no-one complains to them.

Well that said it as it should be said!!!!!

BUT.

Who said it??

Not me.

Mike

On the South East Coast of the Isle of Wight

(You will all note that I top posted to save you all scrolling down a load
of dross, which according to the charter should have been snipped)



"Judith in England" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 10:38:10 +0100, Sacha wrote:

snip


You're right but if England Judith would stop cross-posting her
replies, this rubbish might stop appearing here. Heaven knows
newsgroups are plagued with idiots but why encourage them by giving
them a wider audience? The likelihood is that several people will just
get plonked.


To be polite : get lost.

This is not *your* news group it is open to the public with an interest in
gardening like me.

If you do not want people to cross-post, I suggest that you modify the
charter
to say that it is not allowed.

You would realise, if you had the ability, that most of the posts which you
incorrectly attribute to me, were not made by me at all.

When someone makes a post which is crossposted to other groups, and others
reply, then the default is, that the answers will also go to the
crossposted
groups: just like Baz's, David Hill's, and Janet's replies have done (and I
am
not criticising them at all - but perhaps in order to be consistent you may
wish to do so). I have made just two such posts.

If you can find a post (other than a reply) which I have made and
cross-posted,
then I will be pleased to apologise.

If you can't find such a single post, then perhaps you would like to do so.



PS

From News.Individual.NET policy statement :
The e-mail addresses given in "From:", "Reply-To:", and "Sender:" should be
valid (= should not bounce because of invalidity).

I wonder, is the address valid?

I hope no-one complains to them.

On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 23:12:30 +0100, RustyHinge
wrote:

On 29/06/13 18:52, Judith in England wrote:

I was replying to a message which happened to be cross-posted - therefore my
response needed to be cross-posted.

That's as logical as saying 'he put his head in the fire, so I needed to
as well'.

You don't *need* to crosspost.

Crossposting does have its uses,but I see no creditable reason to
crosspost between URG and URC


Rubbish - the original post and claim was made in both groups - it was
therefore sensible to reply in both groups. If you want to moan - then moan
at the person who made the first cross-post.

Why not get together with Sacha and change the charter?

On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 10:07:22 +0100, Sacha wrote:

On 2013-06-29 18:52:37 +0100, Judith in England said:

On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 11:58:15 +0100, Sacha wrote:

On 2013-06-28 22:02:05 +0100, Judith said:

snip


Still - I will take the opportunity: my courgettes are doing really well!!

Could I suggest you don't cross post please?


I was replying to a message which happened to be cross-posted - therefore my
response needed to be cross-posted.

Not really. It could be answered in the group in which the problem originated.


Rubbish - the reply was intended to be read in both groups as it was a reply to
the original post. People who had read the original post, could then read my
response irrespective of the group they were reading.

Why not get together with Rusty Hinge and get the charter changed to prohibit
cross-posting; then you will really be able to moan at people.

Yes change the charter about pruning back previous postings to make them
easier to read, because those who should know better ignore the suggestion
don't they?

Mike

(Sorry I don't have a business I can advertise in my signature)




"Judith" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 23:12:30 +0100, RustyHinge
wrote:

On 29/06/13 18:52, Judith in England wrote:

I was replying to a message which happened to be cross-posted - therefore
my
response needed to be cross-posted.

That's as logical as saying 'he put his head in the fire, so I needed to
as well'.

You don't *need* to crosspost.

Crossposting does have its uses,but I see no creditable reason to
crosspost between URG and URC


Rubbish - the original post and claim was made in both groups - it was
therefore sensible to reply in both groups. If you want to moan - then
moan
at the person who made the first cross-post.

Why not get together with Sacha and change the charter?

On 30/06/13 19:10, Judith wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 23:12:30 +0100, RustyHinge
wrote:

On 29/06/13 18:52, Judith in England wrote:

I was replying to a message which happened to be cross-posted - therefore my
response needed to be cross-posted.

That's as logical as saying 'he put his head in the fire, so I needed to
as well'.

You don't *need* to crosspost.

Crossposting does have its uses,but I see no creditable reason to
crosspost between URG and URC


Rubbish - the original post and claim was made in both groups - it was
therefore sensible to reply in both groups. If you want to moan - then moan
at the person who made the first cross-post.

Why not get together with Sacha and change the charter?

I wonder what weed would sprout if we buried the so-called 'Judith' six
feet under?

--
Rusty Hinge
To err is human. To really foul things up requires a computer and the BOFH.

On 2013-11-15 23:54:18 +0000, RustyHinge said:

On 30/06/13 19:10, Judith wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 23:12:30 +0100, RustyHinge
wrote:

On 29/06/13 18:52, Judith in England wrote:

I was replying to a message which happened to be cross-posted - therefore my
response needed to be cross-posted.

That's as logical as saying 'he put his head in the fire, so I needed to
as well'.

You don't *need* to crosspost.

Crossposting does have its uses,but I see no creditable reason to
crosspost between URG and URC


Rubbish - the original post and claim was made in both groups - it was
therefore sensible to reply in both groups. If you want to moan - then moan
at the person who made the first cross-post.

Why not get together with Sacha and change the charter?

I wonder what weed would sprout if we buried the so-called 'Judith' six
feet under?

You're replying to a post sent in late June, Rusty. For myself, I hope
the problem has taken care of itself. ;-)
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon

On 16/11/13 18:25, sacha wrote:
On 2013-11-15 23:54:18 +0000, RustyHinge said:

On 30/06/13 19:10, Judith wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 23:12:30 +0100, RustyHinge
wrote:

On 29/06/13 18:52, Judith in England wrote:

I was replying to a message which happened to be cross-posted -
therefore my
response needed to be cross-posted.

That's as logical as saying 'he put his head in the fire, so I
needed to
as well'.

You don't *need* to crosspost.

Crossposting does have its uses,but I see no creditable reason to
crosspost between URG and URC


Rubbish - the original post and claim was made in both groups - it was
therefore sensible to reply in both groups. If you want to moan -
then moan
at the person who made the first cross-post.

Why not get together with Sacha and change the charter?

I wonder what weed would sprout if we buried the so-called 'Judith'
six feet under?

You're replying to a post sent in late June, Rusty. For myself, I hope
the problem has taken care of itself. ;-)

Well, some posts in the thread has miraculously appeared in the undead
section at the bottom of the list.

And, er, because it was there.

--
Rusty Hinge
To err is human. To really foul things up requires a computer and the BOFH.