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


30 odd irrelevant re-quoted lines about wasps, lions etc
mercifully
removed in accordance with the rules of netiquette.

I doubt if you will be able to persuade David to abide by the
usual
rules of netiquette. Others have tried and failed, so you will
just
have to struggle through his contributions, which are usually
worth
reading, despite the missing context, snip marks and attributions.

I doubt if you will be able to persuade Franz to abide by the
usual
rules of netiquette. Others have tried and failed, so you will just
have
to struggle through his contributions, which are usually badly
edited
and full of irrelevent content

That is an incorrect statement. Perhaps "sometimes" rather than
"usually" might be more nearly corect, don't you think?

despite his frequent

That is an exaggeration. I would be happy to agree with "occasional"
instead of "frequent".

criticism of other
peoples' use of context and editing technique

Yes. I am a mere mortal. I do tend to under-edit others'
contributions and I am the world's champion typomaker.

Franz