"lonelytraveller" wrote in
message ups.com...
If you were as smart as you think, you would know that you don't set
the accepted standard of manners, so **** off.


I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. It is a newsgroup
convention to quote at least some of the preceding conversation: perhaps you
should consider doing this, if you want to be understood.
with respect
vellov

In article . com,
lonelytraveller wrote:
If you were as smart as you think, you would know that you don't set
the accepted standard of manners, so **** off.

If you're going to be rude to my friends, I can't be arsed to go and
find some pictures of the Paris caverns which I *had* thought might
interest you.

Nick
--
http://www.leverton.org/ ... So express yourself

On 12 May 2005, lonelytraveller wrote:

If you had worked out how to use google groups properly, you would
understand why they decided NOT to include the original in the reply by
default.

What you have to remember is that the vast majority of people reading this
newsgroup are not using google groups. For us, your messages are pretty
much incomprehensible - everything you say is a non-sequitur! The reason
people are trying to convince you to quote is that we want to be able to
understand what you're writing, which at present, we can't; your choice
isn't about following some arbitrary set of rules, it's about making
yourself understood.

tom

--
Gotta treat 'em mean to make 'em scream.

Nick Leverton wrote to uk.transport.london on Sat, 14 May 2005:

In article . com,
lonelytraveller wrote:
If you were as smart as you think, you would know that you don't set
the accepted standard of manners, so **** off.

If you're going to be rude to my friends, I can't be arsed to go and
find some pictures of the Paris caverns which I *had* thought might
interest you.

You might find them for me, though, Nick, pretty please with sugar on?
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 3 April 2005

Times change.
If you don't keep up, you will be left behind.

being understood "with respect" is secondary to the primary function of
being understood.
Respect is not required for the communication of information.
It is the idiot who disregards a truth because their enemy has said it.

Being understood "with respect" is secondary to being understood.
It is only the idiot who disregards a truth because an enemy has said
it.

"Gotta treat 'em mean to make 'em scream. "

Hmmm, google has posted this twice

People in the real world are friends.
These are just people you write e-mails to.