"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.
*********

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



Sorry, but although snipping is generally good, it is best practice to
leave enough of the exchange in to allow someone to understand the
context. Without requesting all the messages in the thread, It is not
possible to get the context when someone just posts a response with none
of the preceeding posts. (These, of course, should be snipped as
appropriate - there is rarely a need to have all preceeding posts in
full).

--
regards andyw

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



Sorry, but although snipping is generally good, it is best practice to
leave enough of the exchange in to allow someone to understand the
context. Without requesting all the messages in the thread, It is not
possible to get the context when someone just posts a response with none
of the preceeding posts. (These, of course, should be snipped as
appropriate - there is rarely a need to have all preceeding posts in
full).

--
regards andyw

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.

"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

"Phil L" wrote in message
...
Janet Baraclough.. wrote:

[snip]

Which is how I came to post here in the first place - to inform the
crossposting trolls

Your posts would have been received with more enthusiasm if you had
come to post about gardening instead.
Moreover, it is not possible to inform crossposting trolls.

[snip]

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 !

By now, you have had your mileage out of David's bad posting habits.
Forget it. You are not going to change his style. Just concentrate
on talking about gardening and all will soon be forgiven.

Franz

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



Janet Baraclough.. wrote:

No, I didn't write any part of the post you quoted. Please be more
careful with your editing and attributions, Franz.

My sincere apologies for sowing confusion. It was, of course, Phil L
to whom I was replying.

In excuse, I would mention that the original post already had the seed
of the misattribution. I have just composed a new experimental reply
to it and the same misatribution occurs without me doing anything
wrong. ( I did not post this experiment)

Franz



Janet.

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



Janet Baraclough.. wrote:

No, I didn't write any part of the post you quoted. Please be more
careful with your editing and attributions, Franz.

My sincere apologies for sowing confusion. It was, of course, Phil L
to whom I was replying.

In excuse, I would mention that the original post already had the seed
of the misattribution. I have just composed a new experimental reply
to it and the same misatribution occurs without me doing anything
wrong. ( I did not post this experiment)

Franz



Janet.