Checksum OT 4275

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:33:56 +0200, Peter T. Breuer

No, you responded to my first post.

I suggest you check the thread.

Some advice : Either learn how to use scare quotes, or stop using them.

You start following a thread when you first read a post in the thread, your first act of following up to an article in the thread is when you start participating in the thread. While participating implies following, not paticipating implies nothing WRT following.

BTW: Thank you for admitting that you have trouble following threads, that the trouble is self-inflicted just means that you are the only one who can truely fix it.

If that 200 posts is in total, no wonder you keep missing things.

Yes, one could. You choose not to, don't blame other people for your choices.

Note how I use the word constantly there, it is important to the meaning of the sentence. I did not say that the writer should never have to restate things.

I know he has seen every post he has replied to. I also know he should be capable of asking a question if some context seems to be missing.

Frankly, usenet propagation hasn't been anywhere near that bad in well over a decade, and if a post is missing it is the work of a moment to include something like "I missed the start of the thread, let me know if I'm off base here," in your response.

It is on this planet. In fact, I would go so far as to say that IME it is the norm: It's what I often hear when people ask me for help, it's what I overhear when I bring my car in for service, it's simply what most people do.

If you don't like reading things in narrative form, then don't. Just don't be surprised when your choice results in you skipping information needed to coherently respond.

No, it's not the idiosyncratic form you demand of people. It also neatly disproves your claims regarding the narrative form being "a long story that uses literary artifices" - as it is both short and contains no literary artifices.

Attempt to dodge noted.

-- Phoenix