The message
from "Phil L" contains these words:

....if
everyone just posted wherever and however they felt like, threads would be
unreadable.

This group has survived many failed attempts to make it
unreadable.Tactics used include the personal targetting of respected
longterm gardening contributors with dishonest attempts to discredit
them in various ways; attempts to disrupt threads and confuse newbies to
usenet; and the posting of meaningless random-junk messages. Btw, what a
lot of random-junk messages appear in your posting history.

Anyone for a game of snap?

Janet.

Janet Baraclough.. wrote:
:: The message
:: from "Phil L" contains these words:
::
:: ...if
::: everyone just posted wherever and however they felt like, threads
::: would be unreadable.
::
:: This group has survived many failed attempts to make it
:: unreadable.Tactics used include the personal targetting of
:: respected longterm gardening contributors with dishonest attempts
:: to discredit them in various ways; attempts to disrupt threads and
:: confuse newbies to usenet; and the posting of meaningless
:: random-junk messages.

Which is how I came to post here in the first place - to inform the
crossposting trolls and those in this group who continually reply to them,
to cut the newsgroup names from the headers.

Btw, what a lot of random-junk messages
:: appear in your posting history.

I presume you are referring to the sporge attacks in
free.uk.internet.blueyonder.poor.service?
These are all from a Trowbridge user if you check the IP address, my IP
address is Knowsley - about 250 miles away (HTH)
::
:: Anyone for a game of snap?

You don't need to get your knickers in a twist - I posted some useful
information to help someone out, David jumped in and informed me that I must
have a small garden ! -when I corrected him, he spat his dummy out and then
you jumped on the bandwagon...I am here to help and maybe learn something
about gardening, so you can go and play out your Miss Marple investigations
somewhere else, If my regular group was free of the crossposted kak that
originates and is propogated from here, then maybe I could visit that
occasionally.

Phil L.still going on said " You don't need to get your knickers in a
twist - I posted some useful information to help someone out, David jumped
in and informed me that I must have a small garden ! -when I corrected him,
he spat his dummy out and then you jumped on the bandwagon...I am here to
help and maybe learn something about gardening, so you can go and play out
your Miss Marple investigations somewhere else, If my regular group was free
of the crossposted kak that originates and is propogated from here, then
maybe I could visit that
occasionally."

You really need to learn how a news group works and to get your facts
correct.
You flatter yourself when you insist that I was replying to you...sorry but
you were not even in my thoughts and I have no interest in the size of your
garden or anything else of yours.....My computer screen has 2 buttons for
replying to messages, one is Reply group..........if you use this and don't
change the subject line then your message joins the list of those under the
topic you are replying to
The next is Reply,.......... this sends your reply to the sender only.
So I will spell it out for you, one replies to the thread, the other replies
to the sender.
Now regarding spiting out dummies, I think you should re insert yours and
get someone to change your nappy, as your behaviour is like that of my
youngest Grandson when he wants his nappy changing and no one is paying him
attention.he kicks and shouts till he gets the attention he wants.
If you want to learn something about gardening then I would suggest that you
stop antagonising everyone before you are blacklisted by most of the posters
to this group.
Alternatively you could return to your previous group, hoping they will in
fact have you back, then return to this group when you have grown up a
little and matured a lot.

Phil L also said "he didn't thank me at all and decided to start a new
thread called 'For Phil L' where he continued his tantrum."

If you check I said "Don't bother replying to this as I have no intention of
starting a thread "
In fact it was you that decided to make it into a thread by replying.

All I can say if you consider my reply to you was a "tantrum" then what you
have a lot to learn.
Might I suggest that you now stop your juvenile ranting and insults aimed at
anyone who doesn't regard you as Gods gift to News groups. and let everyone
get back to gardening.

--
David Hill
Abacus nurseries
www.abacus-nurseries.co.uk

If I was replying to the OP, my reply would be here.

In article , David Hill david@abacusn
urseries.freeserve.co.uk writes

The next is Reply,.......... this sends your reply to the sender only.
So I will spell it out for you, one replies to the thread, the other replies
to the sender.

My newsreader does the same - but the point is that it attaches the
reply to the post you are reading when you reply. So if A answers a
question, B replies, C reads B's post and hits 'reply', then C's message
gets attached to B's even if C was addressing his comments to A's post
and ignoring anything B said. And that's what happened in this case as
far as I can see - you were C, answering A, but after reading B, so that
in a newsreader which threads posts, your post attached itself to the
reply, not to the OP.

No big deal, and I can't see quite why PhilL was so upset about it.

Though your habit of snipping the attribution and not quoting anything
that you're replying to does make it very difficult to understand what
you're replying to, and in that case hitting 'previous' takes you back,
not to the OP that your reply was addressed to, but to the second post,
which you weren't commenting on.


--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

In article , Phil L
writes
If I was replying to the OP, my reply would be here.


And many of us can't immediately tell the difference in this case
because our newsreader smoothly opens posts for us following the threads
of the replies. It's only when people snip all context that we have to
look back at the headings layout to see which post links to which.

--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , Phil L
writes
If I was replying to the OP, my reply would be here.


And many of us can't immediately tell the difference in this case
because our newsreader smoothly opens posts for us following the
threads
of the replies. It's only when people snip all context that we have
to
look back at the headings layout to see which post links to which.

And please tell David that retaining the relevant headers and the
attribution marks " " is part of the process of not throwing away
the
context. When there are many contributors to a thread, those marks
are essential for understanding who said what when.

David, your posts are usually very much worth reading, but they would
be much easier to understand if you were to adhere to those usenet
courtesies.

Franz

"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , Phil L
writes
If I was replying to the OP, my reply would be here.


And many of us can't immediately tell the difference in this case
because our newsreader smoothly opens posts for us following the
threads
of the replies. It's only when people snip all context that we have
to
look back at the headings layout to see which post links to which.

And please tell David that retaining the relevant headers and the
attribution marks " " is part of the process of not throwing away
the
context. When there are many contributors to a thread, those marks
are essential for understanding who said what when.

David, your posts are usually very much worth reading, but they would
be much easier to understand if you were to adhere to those usenet
courtesies.

Franz

"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , Phil L
writes
If I was replying to the OP, my reply would be here.


And many of us can't immediately tell the difference in this case
because our newsreader smoothly opens posts for us following the
threads
of the replies. It's only when people snip all context that we have
to
look back at the headings layout to see which post links to which.

And please tell David that retaining the relevant headers and the
attribution marks " " is part of the process of not throwing away
the
context. When there are many contributors to a thread, those marks
are essential for understanding who said what when.

For David: your posts are usually very much worth reading, but they
would
be much easier to understand if you were to adhere to those usenet
courtesies.

Franz

"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , Phil L
writes
If I was replying to the OP, my reply would be here.


And many of us can't immediately tell the difference in this case
because our newsreader smoothly opens posts for us following the
threads
of the replies. It's only when people snip all context that we have
to
look back at the headings layout to see which post links to which.

And please tell David that retaining the relevant headers and the
attribution marks " " is part of the process of not throwing away
the
context. When there are many contributors to a thread, those marks
are essential for understanding who said what when.

David, your posts are usually very much worth reading, but they would
be much easier to understand if you were to adhere to those usenet
courtesies.

Franz

"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , Phil L
writes
If I was replying to the OP, my reply would be here.


And many of us can't immediately tell the difference in this case
because our newsreader smoothly opens posts for us following the
threads
of the replies. It's only when people snip all context that we have
to
look back at the headings layout to see which post links to which.

And please tell David that retaining the relevant headers and the
attribution marks " " is part of the process of not throwing away
the
context. When there are many contributors to a thread, those marks
are essential for understanding who said what when.

David, your posts are usually very much worth reading, but they would
be much easier to understand if you were to adhere to those usenet
courtesies.

Franz

"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , Phil L
writes
If I was replying to the OP, my reply would be here.


And many of us can't immediately tell the difference in this case
because our newsreader smoothly opens posts for us following the
threads
of the replies. It's only when people snip all context that we have
to
look back at the headings layout to see which post links to which.

And please tell David that retaining the relevant headers and the
attribution marks " " is part of the process of not throwing away
the
context. When there are many contributors to a thread, those marks
are essential for understanding who said what when.

David, your posts are usually very much worth reading, but they would
be much easier to understand if you were to adhere to those usenet
courtesies.

Franz

My apologies for the multiple posting. I have been having computer
trouble, now hopefully sorted out.

Franz

On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 11:25:02 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:

My apologies for the multiple posting. I have been having computer
trouble, now hopefully sorted out.

You can say that again :-)
--
Martin

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , Phil L
writes
If I was replying to the OP, my reply would be here.


And many of us can't immediately tell the difference in this case
because our newsreader smoothly opens posts for us following the
threads
of the replies. It's only when people snip all context that we have
to
look back at the headings layout to see which post links to which.

And please tell David that retaining the relevant headers and the
attribution marks " " is part of the process of not throwing away
the
context. When there are many contributors to a thread, those marks
are essential for understanding who said what when.

David, your posts are usually very much worth reading, but they would
be much easier to understand if you were to adhere to those usenet
courtesies.

Franz

*********
What is more infuriating than , - having paid to download on an
seemingly interesting topic in which you have an interest, - you get
someone apparently answering nobody, by deleting the previous posts.
The instigator probably wants to conduct a private conversation and
hasn't yet heard of E /Mails.
Take it or leave it, Newsgroups, or Chat Shows are just what they say
they are and are open to, and for, anyone.
And long may it stay that way.
Public Radio was a blessing to thousands of people and is now almost
totally defunct due to foul-mouthed louts of all ages and sexes
instantly interfering right in the middle of a transmission.
Newsgroups are a blessing to millions in a worldwide spectrum enjoyed
by persons in/of all walks of life.
There are the spammers and foul-mouths, too, of course , but they cannot
cut-in to a conversation and block further transmission.
Also, in my case I have a simple answer when they appear on download, -
a delete key which excludes them from further downloads unless I want
them.
Doug.
*********