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.

RustyHinge wrote:

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

This sometimes happens because of a server fart.

And, er, because it was there.

Thank you sir Edmund!

In the U.S., crosspost trimming (always a good idea if some of the groups
are unconnected with the others) is sometimes called "DeBoursification,"
after a kook of that name. Who has been silent for some years due to being
dead for tax reasons.



--
Gary Woods AKA K2AHC- PGP key on request, or at home.earthlink.net/~garygarlic
Zone 5/4 in upstate New York, 1420' elevation. NY WO G

In article ,
says...

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

But they are all dated. You requoted

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:


Janet.

On 16/11/13 22:12, Janet wrote:
In article ,
says...

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

But they are all dated. You requoted

Of course.

It's only polite.

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

In article ,
says...

On 16/11/13 22:12, Janet wrote:
In article ,
says...

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

But they are all dated. You requoted

Of course.

So, you do know when you're requoting an ancient post and it's
deliberate. Thanks for clearing that up, benefit of doubt removed.

It's only polite.

Knowingly requoting some ancient post to revive your ancient
crossposted flame war, is just trolling.


Janet

On 16/11/13 20:58, Chris Hogg wrote:

Curious that it should re-emerge here now, as a 'Judith' in uk.d-i-y
is currently distancing herself from another 'Judith' who is
apparently using her ID in that group.

I think thr real Judith has a stalker.

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