Re: [OT] DIY electrical work

[Danny Colyer]

Richard Goodman wrote:
>> Sheesh, doesn't anyone bother to read my follow up postings... I already
>> admitted I was wrong. No need to rub it in!

to which Ian Smith responded:
> Depending how they are threaded and propogated, no, I don't guarantee
> to read everthing you've posted before writing a response to any
> particular thing. Does anyone?

I thought that was pretty standard netiquette. I never post to a thread
without first having read everything in that thread that has reached my
news server. In fact, before replying to a point raised by a specific
person I will often go back and reread all of that person's posts in the
thread. That seems like common courtesy to me.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

 

[Ian Smith]

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, Danny Colyer <[email protected]> wrote:
> Richard Goodman wrote:
> >> Sheesh, doesn't anyone bother to read my follow up postings... I already
> >> admitted I was wrong. No need to rub it in!
>
> to which Ian Smith responded:
> > Depending how they are threaded and propogated, no, I don't guarantee
> > to read everthing you've posted before writing a response to any
> > particular thing. Does anyone?
>
> I thought that was pretty standard netiquette. I never post to a thread
> without first having read everything in that thread that has reached my
> news server. In fact, before replying to a point raised by a specific
> person I will often go back and reread all of that person's posts in the
> thread. That seems like common courtesy to me.

Yes, but that doesn't guarantee that you'll have read everything a
poster has posted at a particular instant. It is also affected by how
your reader chooses to thread.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Peter B]

"Danny Colyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Richard Goodman wrote:
> >> Sheesh, doesn't anyone bother to read my follow up postings... I
already
> >> admitted I was wrong. No need to rub it in!
>
> to which Ian Smith responded:
> > Depending how they are threaded and propogated, no, I don't guarantee
> > to read everthing you've posted before writing a response to any
> > particular thing. Does anyone?
>
> I thought that was pretty standard netiquette. I never post to a thread
> without first having read everything in that thread that has reached my
> news server. In fact, before replying to a point raised by a specific
> person I will often go back and reread all of that person's posts in the
> thread. That seems like common courtesy to me.

To me it depends on the length of the thread. If it's fairly short and to my
interest I'll read all the replies and only add my opinion if it's
different to those already expressed or occasionally to add weight to one
already expressed.
On long meandering threads I often don't read all the replies but may still
feel compelled to post a reply at risk of duplication, but equally no-one
*has* to read my reply.
And then of course several of us could post replies in a short period of
time before each others has appeared.

Pete

 

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 21:09:39 +0000 someone who may be JLB
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>In that
>arrangement, a seal that is completely effective at high pressure can
>perform poorly at low pressure.

To repeat what I typed, "Then all one needs to do is test the
pipework for soundness and the job is done."


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Peter B]

"Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Yes, but that doesn't guarantee that you'll have read everything a
> poster has posted at a particular instant. It is also affected by how
> your reader chooses to thread.

A case in point: Ians post has only just appeared on my reader, 16-12-04,
even though Dannys appeared on 11-12-04.

Pete