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

"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.

"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.

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.

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

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

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

"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.

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

"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.