Re: the "but for" test
- From: "M.I.5¾" <no.one@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 08:19:09 +0100
<tomcrocker@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1155135574.131343.72600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ok thanks, sorry about the posting, am using google groups, guess your
post must have not been showing when I hit reply.
---------------------------------
Erm. No, you have top posted again.
The correct place to put your point is right at the bottom after the point
you are responding to. It is also a good idea to remove any previous
irrelavent material (known as 'snipping'), particularly any long rambling
drivel that turns up from time to time, but take care to preserve the
context of the discussion.
[snipped: all following material]
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: the "but for" test
- From: tomcrocker
- Re: the "but for" test
- References:
- the "but for" test
- From: tomcrocker
- Re: the "but for" test
- From: The Todal
- Re: the "but for" test
- From: tomcrocker
- Re: the "but for" test
- From: Willy
- Re: the "but for" test
- From: tomcrocker
- Re: the "but for" test
- From: Willy
- Re: the "but for" test
- From: M.I.5¾
- Re: the "but for" test
- From: Willy
- Re: the "but for" test
- From: M.I.5¾
- Re: the "but for" test
- From: tomcrocker
- Re: the "but for" test
- From: M.I.5¾
- Re: the "but for" test
- From: tomcrocker
- the "but for" test
- Prev by Date: Re: Home Secretary says we must cut off our noses to spite our faces
- Next by Date: Re: Claiming Power Surge Damages
- Previous by thread: Re: the "but for" test
- Next by thread: Re: the "but for" test
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
