Re: offski
- From: Mike Plowman <mike.plowman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:24:41 +0000
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:12:44 +0000, Froot Bat <me@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:16:26 +0100, Martin <me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:25:08 +0000, Mike Plowman <mike.plowman@xxxxxxx> wrote:
How about a nice polite
"This poster has chosen not to respond to the posts of Christopher
Barker." to his posts? At least that way any new posters might ask why
and they can be pointed to the Google archive and the point continues
to me made.
You could post a weekly UMTM FAQ for newcomers.
This is a terrible idea (even worse than responding to say "I am not
responding"). I've seen this done in other groups. Nobody cares except
the people writing it and the person they are giving the attention to.
(For the past ten years FAQs are always done for the wrong reasons.)
It's about one step short of making an entire website about him which,
in case anyone is actually thinking about it, is utter lunacy.
Hmmph, well I'm not responding to that! :-)
--
Mike Plowman
.
- References:
- offski
- From: tomScotland
- Re: offski
- From: Col
- Re: offski
- From: Ian F.
- Re: offski
- From: Mike Plowman
- offski
- Prev by Date: Re: OT - Sir Fred's pension
- Next by Date: Re: OT - Sir Fred's pension
- Previous by thread: Re: offski
- Next by thread: Re: offski
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
