hrafndot wrote in message

As a new newsgroup reader, I am guessing what "snippage" means (I guess
a kind of cut & paste). "in line" i'm not sure. I'm guessing also
that it is better to press the "quote" button rather than a straight
"reply" option. "Top posting" is a mystery to me but it seems I am
doing it. If someone could point me to a best explanation of the
jargon I would be obliged.

Top posting is putting your reply above the message, which you are not
doing.
Anyway, to get back to the subject, many early flowering clematis like
alpina will sometimes have a few flowers later given a good summer. The
same applies to some other early flowering climbers such as wisteria,
mine is no having a second go at flowering.

Mike
www.british-naturism.org.uk

"hrafndot" wrote in message
s.com...
Franz Heymann wrote:
*"hrafndot" wrote in message
s.com...
Clematis flowering twice
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 20:23:45 +0000 (UTC), "bnd777"
wrote:

Oh for goodness sake all this nonsense about top posting and
snipping
Plenty of us are sick to death of rereading the previous posts we
simply
remember the thread and respond accordingly
Darn site easier to read top posting anyway

I agree

Pam in Bristol

Thank you. However, I will bone up on the rules before I post
again.

The "rules" are quite unambiguous. They recommend that contributors
reply
in line, in order to maintain the integrity of the flow of the
thread. They
also recommend snipping to keep the length of the thread in bounds,
but not
so much as to lose the context. And lastly, if there is any
snippage, there
should always be enough headers left at the top to enable a reader to
know
who said what in what remains of the conversation.

Franz *

Thanks, Franz

As a new newsgroup reader, I am guessing what "snippage" means (I guess
a kind of cut & paste).

To snip means to cut a stretch of the thread which is no longer relevant.
It is helpful if a snipper would insert the verbiage "[snip]" in lieu of the
snipped material. This enables a new reader of that particular thread to
realise quickly that there might be something worth looking at in an earlier
item in the thread.

"in line" i'm not sure. I'm guessing also

*In line" means that you put each of your replies immediately below each
point to which you are responding, leaving a blank line before and after as
guides to the eye. In line posting is what I am doing here.

that it is better to press the "quote" button rather than a straight
"reply" option.

I have no idea of what a "quote" button might be. I use the "reply" button.

"Top posting" is a mystery to me but it seems I am
doing it. If someone could point me to a best explanation of the
jargon I would be obliged.

"Top posting" occurs when a reader responds by putting its contribution at
the top of the thread instead of in line. In a thread in which there has
been a succession of random in-line and top posted comments, the logical
development of the conversation is utterly lost, and it becomes
progressively more and more difficult to follow why who said what to whom.

Happy posting! {:-))

Franz

Franz

Rachel, London
--
hrafndot
------------------------------------------------------------------------
posted via www.GardenBanter.co.uk

"bnd777" wrote in message
...

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
In article m,
hrafndot writes
I submitted a reply and filled in the subject "second flowering of
clematis". I was sticking to the thread subject and did not go off
post.
No, but because you haven't quoted any of the post you are replying to,
I haven't the faintest what you're on about!
--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

Oh for goodness sake all this nonsense about top posting and snipping

I think you do not realise that there is a continuous stream of new readers
who frequently have to be shown what constitutes good manners when
participating in this ng. And old readers who find it difficult to play the
game according to the rules.

Plenty of us are sick to death of rereading the previous posts we simply
remember the thread and respond accordingly

Not all of us are endowed with such a marvellous memory as you seen to
possess.
However, you have forgotten that a large fraction of the readers of a
particular thread may well have jumped on to a moving train, and your lack
of style makes it quite difficult for them to find their bearings.

Darn site easier to read top posting anyway

Not when there is more than one prior remark to which a reader may wish to
refer if it wants to fully understand a thread.
Also not when there have been more than one top posting interspersed with
correct posting.
Also not when the headers concerning matter still in context have been
destroyed.

Franz

I have been following this thread, and I have identified an error in the GardenBanter software, which under certain conditions causes the header (title of the topic) to be written incorrectly and causes problems to newsreaders in threading the responses when posts are submitted through the GardenBanter gateway.

I have isolated the cause, and will update with a fix in the next 12-24 hours.

My apologies for this oversight. The incorrect headers are not the result of poor netiquette from the posters from GardenBanter. Thankfully it has only affected a small number of posts.

"kevinmiddleton" wrote in message
s.com...
I have been following this thread, and I have identified an error in the
GardenBanter software, which under certain conditions causes the header
(title of the topic) to be written incorrectly and causes problems to
newsreaders in threading the responses when posts are submitted through
the GardenBanter gateway.

I have isolated the cause, and will update with a fix in the next 12-24
hours.

My apologies for this oversight. The incorrect headers are not the
result of poor netiquette from the posters from GardenBanter.
Thankfully it has only affected a small number of posts.

What is the reason why folk participate in this ng via GardenBanter rather
than subscrube directly to the ng?

Franz

"bnd777" wrote in message
...

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
In article m,
hrafndot writes
I submitted a reply and filled in the subject "second flowering of
clematis". I was sticking to the thread subject and did not go off
post.
No, but because you haven't quoted any of the post you are replying to,
I haven't the faintest what you're on about!
--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

Oh for goodness sake all this nonsense about top posting and snipping
Plenty of us are sick to death of rereading the previous posts we simply
remember the thread and respond accordingly
Darn site easier to read top posting anyway

Please show some consideration for those urglers who play the game according
to the rules.
We don't all have the mammoth memory which you claim to have.
If you had ever tried to disentangle a top-posted thread which had
subsequently been top posted yet again, you will realise why the
recommendations for contributing to this ng include *not* top posting and
*not* snipping the headers.

Franz

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:


What is the reason why folk participate in this ng via GardenBanter rather
than subscribe directly to the ng?

A) They don't know there's a far easier, better way.

B) By reading /posting to urg via GB Kevin hopes his members will help
him make money.

According to the website, Kevin intends to attract commercial
advertising, therefore he has to make his website register as many user
"hits" every day as possible, to convince advertisers it's a busy
website and worth their while buying advertising space on. Every time
his members access urg via GB, they increase his website hit rate.

It's not in Kevin's financial interest for his website users to access
garden newsgroups offline, free and unmoderated via a newsreader, like
most of us do.

Looking in my crystal ball, I can predict this is one post of mine
that won't be appearing on gardenbanter.

Janet.

In message m,
hrafndot writes
I submitted a reply and filled in the subject "second flowering
of
clematis". I was sticking to the thread subject and did not go
off
post.

and you di so via:

posted via www.GardenBanter.co.uk

a web- based interface for this Usenet discussion group. It doesn't
appear to support Usenet conventions.

I wonder how many gardenbanter users fondly imagine that this
newsgroup is a forum belonging to the website, since gb offers no
meaningful information about newsgroups and usenet.

Janet.

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 03:27:59 +0100, Janet Baraclough
wrote:

Looking in my crystal ball, I can predict this is one post of mine
that won't be appearing on gardenbanter.

LOL!
--
Martin

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these
words:


What is the reason why folk participate in this ng via GardenBanter
rather
than subscribe directly to the ng?

A) They don't know there's a far easier, better way.

B) By reading /posting to urg via GB Kevin hopes his members will help
him make money.

According to the website, Kevin intends to attract commercial
advertising, therefore he has to make his website register as many user
"hits" every day as possible, to convince advertisers it's a busy
website and worth their while buying advertising space on. Every time
his members access urg via GB, they increase his website hit rate.

It's not in Kevin's financial interest for his website users to access
garden newsgroups offline, free and unmoderated via a newsreader, like
most of us do.

Looking in my crystal ball, I can predict this is one post of mine
that won't be appearing on gardenbanter.

I might have thought that money rears its ugly head somewhere.
Do you mean to say that that bloke will decide which bits of a thread his
users will be allowed to read? What a miserable way of participating in
chatting about gardening.

How about one of us approaching this would-be entrepreneur and suggesting
that he/she will undertake to visit the gardenbanter site regularly for a
remittance of twenty pee per visit?

Franz