( OT ) Apology to John H
 

I apologize for the cut and past. It's late and I'm tired. I should
never have resorted to such a Republican tactic.

( OT ) Apology to John H
 

"Jim" wrote in message

I apologize for the cut and past. It's late and I'm tired. I should
never have resorted to such a Republican tactic.

I saw no typical Republican tactic in use, just normal Democrat policy and
procedure.

( OT ) Apology to John H
 

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"Jim" wrote in message

I apologize for the cut and past. It's late and I'm tired. I should
never have resorted to such a Republican tactic.

I saw no typical Republican tactic in use, just normal Democrat policy and
procedure.

Okay, John H.

( OT ) Apology to John H
 

I killed the post about 5 minutes after posting. The apology was just
in case it remained on any server, or anyone had picked it up in the interim

basskisser wrote:
"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...

"Jim" wrote in message


I apologize for the cut and past. It's late and I'm tired. I should
never have resorted to such a Republican tactic.

I saw no typical Republican tactic in use, just normal Democrat policy and
procedure.


Okay, John H.

( OT ) Apology to John H
 

Jim....
Separate and apart from the fact that the cut & paste was completely out of
context, there's something else going on I can't quite follow.

By the times shown on my machine, your original cut/paste showed up at
11:19. You shortly thereafter killed the post and apologized at 11:26.
Then, under a separate post, your cut & paste was posted again at 11:45.
How does this happen?





"Jim" wrote in message
...
I killed the post about 5 minutes after posting. The apology was just
in case it remained on any server, or anyone had picked it up in the
interim

( OT ) Apology to John H
 

I have no idea -- I reposted aftr removing John H's name, but that's it.

John Gaquin wrote:
Jim....
Separate and apart from the fact that the cut & paste was completely out of
context, there's something else going on I can't quite follow.

By the times shown on my machine, your original cut/paste showed up at
11:19. You shortly thereafter killed the post and apologized at 11:26.
Then, under a separate post, your cut & paste was posted again at 11:45.
How does this happen?





"Jim" wrote in message
...

I killed the post about 5 minutes after posting. The apology was just
in case it remained on any server, or anyone had picked it up in the

interim

( OT ) Apology to John H
 

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 23:26:24 -0500, Jim wrote:

I apologize for the cut and past. It's late and I'm tired. I should
never have resorted to such a Republican tactic.

No sweat. I've not seen that before, but the technique has probably
been used by a Republican in the past. I take no offense, and didn't
have a mouthful of anything which would ruin my keyboard.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

( OT ) Apology to John H
 

On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 10:50:21 -0500, Jim wrote:

I have no idea -- I reposted aftr removing John H's name, but that's it.

John Gaquin wrote:
Jim....
Separate and apart from the fact that the cut & paste was completely out of
context, there's something else going on I can't quite follow.

By the times shown on my machine, your original cut/paste showed up at
11:19. You shortly thereafter killed the post and apologized at 11:26.
Then, under a separate post, your cut & paste was posted again at 11:45.
How does this happen?





"Jim" wrote in message
...

I killed the post about 5 minutes after posting. The apology was just
in case it remained on any server, or anyone had picked it up in the

interim




Yup, it's on my machine twice, also. So,

No sweat.

No sweat.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

( OT ) Apology to John H
 

John Gaquin wrote:
I saw no typical Republican tactic in use, just normal Democrat policy and
procedure.

I suggest you go down the list and count the number of insults coming
from each side.

DSK

( OT ) Apology to John H
 

"DSK" wrote in message news:uVi3c.32752

John Gaquin wrote:
I saw no typical Republican tactic in use, just normal Democrat policy
and
procedure.

I suggest you go down the list and count the number of insults coming
from each side.

Nothing to do with presence or absence of insults. I was referring to the
practice of cutting and pasting the context -- attaching response B to
statement A to make the speaker appear to have said something entirely
different from what was actually said.

( OT ) Apology to John H
 

John Gaquin wrote:
Nothing to do with presence or absence of insults.

Why avoid that topic? You personally are not among the worst offenders,
but your team owes a few centuries in the penalty box.


... I was referring to the
practice of cutting and pasting the context -- attaching response B to
statement A to make the speaker appear to have said something entirely
different from what was actually said.

I didn't see that, and can't say what the intent is; but there is a lot
of very careless quoting going on. I don't see any point in trying to
read a post with five or fifteen nested quotes, with a two sentence
reply at the very bottom.

Regards
Doug King

( OT ) Apology to John H
 

"DSK" wrote in message news:8iq3c.55650

........I don't see any point in trying to
read a post with five or fifteen nested quotes, with a two sentence
reply at the very bottom.

I agree with you there. These nimrods who post and repost the same messages
over and over 12 times in the course of multiple replies, winding up with
354 lines of requote and header, and three lines of message at the bottom,
do nothing but waste space and aggravate people. The only rationalization
I've heard is that Usenet has always done it that way -- along with bottom
posting, which I think is equally dim. People ought to be able to keep up
with the conversation with only a line or two of salient quote. End rant.

( OT ) Apology to John H
 

John Gaquin wrote:
.... These nimrods who post and repost the same messages
over and over 12 times in the course of multiple replies, winding up with
354 lines of requote and header, and three lines of message at the bottom,
do nothing but waste space and aggravate people.

There! Some real "consensus building" in action!!

Now all we have to do is get the nimrods to get their acts together.
Y'think if we lead by example....

DSK

( OT ) Apology to John H
 

I agree also. I usually top post to save readers from the same old info I'm
replying to.
Then some whiz will occasionally come back and give me **** for top posting.

( OT ) Apology to John H
 

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 00:19:06 GMT, "Don White"
wrote:


I agree also. I usually top post to save readers from the same old info I'm
replying to.
Then some whiz will occasionally come back and give me **** for top posting.


IMHO, top posting is cumbersome for the simple reason that when trying
to respond to several talking points, it's helpful to place your
responses directly below the passages that you are directly responding
to, in order to establish the proper context for which to place your
comments.

If you are reading a 500 word post and have only a one sentence
summary to make of the whole passage, then top posting might make
sense. But I rarely do that.


Dave

( OT ) Apology to John H
 

Dave Hall wrote:

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 00:19:06 GMT, "Don White"
wrote:


I agree also. I usually top post to save readers from the same old info I'm
replying to.
Then some whiz will occasionally come back and give me **** for top posting.



IMHO, top posting is cumbersome for the simple reason that when trying
to respond to several talking points, it's helpful to place your
responses directly below the passages that you are directly responding
to, in order to establish the proper context for which to place your
comments.

If you are reading a 500 word post and have only a one sentence
summary to make of the whole passage, then top posting might make
sense. But I rarely do that.


Dave


Finally, I agree with Dave: he rarely makes sense.