There is no limit to human folly

[David Schofield]

It seemed too rude to post this in reply to the post which triggered
it but I had to get it off my chest.
David

[Larry Linson]

"David Schofield" wrote

It seemed too rude to post this in
reply to the post which triggered
it but I had to get it off my chest.

I haven't a clue what post you mean, and without knowing that, your subject
line is meaningless.

If you have a problem with a post or thread, there are several ways to deal
with it -- none of which is to post something like this.

(1) You could PLONK the offender (set your newsreader to not show posts from
that source),
(2) you could respond politly telling the offender what is wrong (best if
you can cite the RFD or charter violation, if there is one),
(3) you could even flame the offender (though that is normally
non-productive, it gets something off your chest in a more satisfying
manner... and some others might at least mentally assent, as they are unable
to do now), or
(4) you could complain to the offender's news service or ISP if you believe
they are violating their Terms of Service or Acceptable Use Policy.

Larry Linson

[David Schofield]

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:50:15 GMT, "Larry Linson"
<bo*****@localhost.not> wrote:

"David Schofield" wrote

It seemed too rude to post this in
reply to the post which triggered
it but I had to get it off my chest.

I haven't a clue what post you mean, and without knowing that, your subject
line is meaningless.

Sorry, think of it as a misplaced joke.
At least the subject line is true.
David

[XMVP]

"David Schofield" <d.***************@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:41c36ee5.146567432@localhost...

Good Larry Test!

[Darryl Kerkeslager]

(5) You could use lots of anonymous email addresses and pester adult
newsgroup members for years and years with stupid little comments.
(6) You could make up lies about the "offender".
(7) You could change your signature or add a comment line after your sig
that is designed to irritate the "offender".
(8) You could fake your email address to mimic the "offender", then post
stupid messages.

(These ideas gleaned from mostly anonymous posts to this newsgroup).
Darryl Kerkeslager
"Larry Linson" <bo*****@localhost.not> wrote:

"David Schofield" wrote

> It seemed too rude to post this in
> reply to the post which triggered
> it but I had to get it off my chest.
I haven't a clue what post you mean, and without knowing that, your

subject line is meaningless.

If you have a problem with a post or thread, there are several ways to deal with it -- none of which is to post something like this.

(1) You could PLONK the offender (set your newsreader to not show posts from that source),
(2) you could respond politly telling the offender what is wrong (best if
you can cite the RFD or charter violation, if there is one),
(3) you could even flame the offender (though that is normally
non-productive, it gets something off your chest in a more satisfying
manner... and some others might at least mentally assent, as they are unable to do now), or
(4) you could complain to the offender's news service or ISP if you believe they are violating their Terms of Service or Acceptable Use Policy.

Larry Linson

['69 Camaro]

I agree with David. It would have been too rude of him to write what he was
thinking in the reply that triggered this thread. Even now, David is too
polite to point out which post provoked his reaction. Perhaps the following
description will help others to find the post and mentally assent that there
is, indeed, no limit to human folly:

An Access expert offered the syntax needed to solve a problem. The person
who had the problem replied that the syntax was wrong and described how he
knew it was wrong. He placed the syntax in a slightly different context,
then modified the Access expert's syntax for that context. He then
explained the steps of how the Access expert could avoid this syntax error
(in that other context, of course) in the future, even pointing out to the
Access expert what needed to be changed in the expert's original syntax for
that other context.

HTH.

Gunny

"David Schofield" <d.***************@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:41c36ee5.146567432@localhost...

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:50:15 GMT, "Larry Linson"
<bo*****@localhost.not> wrote:

"David Schofield" wrote

It seemed too rude to post this in
reply to the post which triggered
it but I had to get it off my chest.

I haven't a clue what post you mean, and without knowing that, your subjectline is meaningless.

Sorry, think of it as a misplaced joke.
At least the subject line is true.
David

[Larry Linson]

"XMVP" <ac***********@hotmail.com> wrote

Good Larry Test!

Don, how nice to see that they've let you out for the holidays.

[Darryl Kerkeslager]

"XMVP" <ac***********@hotmail.com> wrote

> Good Larry Test!

See (6), (7), (8), and (9) from the above Blocked Sender.

Darryl Kerkeslager

[Bas Cost Budde]

Darryl Kerkeslager wrote:

(5) You could use lots of anonymous email addresses and pester adult
newsgroup members for years and years with stupid little comments.
(6) You could make up lies about the "offender".
(7) You could change your signature or add a comment line after your sig
that is designed to irritate the "offender".
(8) You could fake your email address to mimic the "offender", then post
stupid messages.

(These ideas gleaned from mostly anonymous posts to this newsgroup).

LOL

--
Bas Cost Budde, Holland
http://www.heuveltop.nl/BasCB/msac_index.html
I prefer human mail above automated so in my address
replace the queue with a tea

[davidjpike]

Seems you have caught one! Hook line 'n' sinker.

XMVP wrote:

"David Schofield" <d.***************@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:41c36ee5.146567432@localhost...

Good Larry Test!