Re: Galileo - Take 2 [Fantastically LONG]
- From: Cory Albrecht <coryalbrecht+news@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:16:50 -0400
Dan Drake wrote, On 2007/04/18 15:02:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 01:58:05 UTC, Cory Albrecht <coryalbrecht+news@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
alwaysaskingquestions wrote, On 2007/04/15 14:38:Thanks, Dan.Who the frell are you responding to? What the heck did they say?
I've been very busy myself and I want to take time to absorb the points you've made, hopefully I'll get back on them this week.
.
Please learn how to quote properly when you respond to somebody else's post.
[Deliberately, out of sheer spite, not clipping the quoted part properly.]
Sheesh. It was addressed, though publicly, to a specific person as part of
an ongoing thread that for the moment had gone idle. The intended main target knew what was involved, as did everyone else who, in following the thread, had seen the fantastically long post in question. Sorry if your news server has a short retention time or dropped the preceding post entirely, but it's not, you know, alwaysasking's fault.
Now comes your lecture on how he ought to have responded by e-mail. In advance, I'll provide my reply: BS.
Sorry to disappoint you then., but I had no intention of making such a lecture. In fact "reply by email" never occurred to me, since talk.origins has a lot of OT posts.
<sarcasm>Besides, that lecture I usually deliver over private email.</sarcasm>
Incidentally it's surprising that anyone who has been on newsgroups as long as you obviously have been would be unaware that there's a newsgroup archiving facility run by a company called Google (it's a new company, not
even in business in the old Usenet days), and if you actually cared about what the context was, you could find the whole thread there.
Yeah, I know about Google's archive. So? Why should I, when reading a newsgroup with Thunderbird (or any other news client, for that matter) have to waste my time by going to Google just to find out the context of somebody's post that did not include any quotes or other indicator to whom they were responding?
You obviously went and looked at my posting profile on Google to figure out how long I've been at this. That's means I have at least some idea of netiquette. Netiquette includes "quote some of what you're replying to to and indicate who said it so others know what is going on". The fact that you've been using that email address on USENET at least as long as I have been using this one would hopefully mean that you know as much about netiquette as I, if not more.
Slam me for abrasiveness or rudeness all you want, but you know as well as I that there's nothing wrong with what I complained about.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Galileo - Take 2 [Fantastically LONG]
- From: Dan Drake
- Re: Galileo - Take 2 [Fantastically LONG]
- References:
- Re: Galileo - Take 2 [Fantastically LONG]
- From: Dan Drake
- Re: Galileo - Take 2 [Fantastically LONG]
- From: alwaysaskingquestions
- Re: Galileo - Take 2 [Fantastically LONG]
- From: Cory Albrecht
- Re: Galileo - Take 2 [Fantastically LONG]
- From: Dan Drake
- Re: Galileo - Take 2 [Fantastically LONG]
- Prev by Date: Re: the pope should take a stand on creation
- Next by Date: Re: In the News: A Complex Tail, Simply Told
- Previous by thread: Re: Galileo - Take 2 [Fantastically LONG]
- Next by thread: Re: Galileo - Take 2 [Fantastically LONG]
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading