| Re: A further follow up which may, or may not, be of interest |
none |
| Ruby (anyone@anywhere.com) |
2006/09/15 22:44 |
Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Ruby <anyone@anywhere.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.smeagol
Subject: Re: A further follow up which may, or may not, be of interest
Date: 15 Sep 2006 23:44:04 -0500
Organization: none
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <fbvmg2po3su4ho8c3oe0sf95ni1gicge3p@4ax.com>
References: <k7gqf2p41l4vm5qoq2v1nd39as2fibslnm@4ax.com> <060920060702313039%%+15$-Y-Not@here-and.there> <uintf25vglhfii51fjsovkkmi9d38imvk7@4ax.com> <lp1uf2djgdmp37q1ficmacn0k8uvl2kmbb@4ax.com> <kjslg21i1obgkrooe54ep25vrbn1pugtqs@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.smeagol:726
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:43:22 GMT, johnny_fairview
<johnny_lightvision@hushmail.com> wrote:
>On 6 Sep 2006 12:47:03 -0500, Ruby <whatsina@name.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 14:43:39 GMT, johnny_fairview
>><johnny_lightvision@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Snipped at length for getting to the point and loosing the balderdash
>>posted by Y-Not.
>>
>
>I remembered your point about snipping when I came across the following
>article about failing to trim Usenet posts. It was written by James
>Follett, a British novelist, and he starts off by wondering why some
>posters in some threads repost the entire message to which they are
>replying:
>
>"Why on earth do people continue to post all this crap?"
My Dear Mr. Fairview:
Thank you so for finding and posting this article, it does bring to
mind a post made by the certain miscreant long ago, when he posted
several lines of diatribe that he was right fond of, and then signed
anothers nik to it.
When called on it, he replied loudly and vehemently "It's the WORDS,
it dosen't matter who posted them, it's the WORDS that are important"!
The reason I believe is this. Any words that the miscreant posts are
sacred to him, he fears that others words will overshadow his own and
that creates great anger in him, whether or not he admits to having
any anger, it is evident in the WORDS that he posts.
>
>And then Mr. Follett goes on to explain why such posters are incapable
>of using usenet the way it was meant to be used:
>
>them in their entirety without bothering to trim a single word. They
>help spread the word. Trimming a follow-up is quite beyond the cognitive
>abilities of many.
>
>Actually the issue of correct posting to the Usenet was the subject of a
>paper published by the Tavistock Institute about seven or eight years
>
>The Usenet is a remarkable tool that is worthy of respect rather than
>the consequences of such muddle-headed thinking."
But then, I am sure that this will deserve a diatribe of at least 1000
WORDS with which to refute anyone who would disagree with his frame of
thinking.
>
>A very erudite commentary on one of the major failings of numerous
>repost it in its entirety in a follow-up?
Loovley, I should send you a pair of my silken knickers for your
efforts, (such as I wore when a svelte girl) However, in my present
life sending them through the post would cause my pocketbook to
deflate, and when opened, the veritible size of said garment would
appear I am sure to be large enough to dust a house, not just to dust
a butt. :-P
However, till I am able to compensate you properly,(perhaps in the
next life) I will attempt to make do with my great thanks.
>
>:-)
>
>Johnny
>
>johnny
>(change lightvision to fairview)
Ruby (Who loves ye from afar)
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
|
|