Author: Severi Salminen
Date: 13:56:25 11/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 26, 2000 at 16:34:07, Chessfun wrote: >On November 26, 2000 at 14:09:20, Peter Kappler wrote: > >>On November 26, 2000 at 13:34:17, Chessfun wrote: >> >>>On November 26, 2000 at 12:55:41, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>> >>>>On November 26, 2000 at 04:24:46, Severi Salminen wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>Not to offed, but you could have posted your three messages of same topic into >>>>>>>same thread, not as three separate threads. These are not _that_ important >>>>>>>announcements... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Severi >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Is every message posted an important announcement?. >>>>>>Who makes the determination....you? >>>>> >>>>>I don't get your point. Daniel posted 3 times something about his internet >>>>>problems. I think he should have posted them to the same thread. It would have >>>>>been easier to follow the progress of his problems. >>>>> >>>>>>He can post as many new threads as he sees fit some here >>>>>>have expressed interest in watching his games and how he >>>>>>decides to post is his choice. >>>>> >>>>>Well, just to inform you also, we have this thread system because we could >>>>>follow certain topics easier. It has nothing to do with interest to his matches. >>>>>It is the same if everybody wants to read them or nobody, it is just a matter of >>>>>makeing things clearer. Maybe this place needs some basic rules as many still >>>>>don't know simple basics of posting to a forum or NG... >>>>> >>>>>Severi >>>> >>>>You are right that he should have posted this to one thread, but you aren't >>>>going to get a lot of support for the idea of "rules". >>> >>> >>>Shoulda/woulda/coulda. There are no rules that state he should post >>>to one thread. There are people who come here and post and have fun >>>doing it. Daniel I think is one of them, to expect that he should follow >>>more rules that don't even exist, after the recent blow-up over his headers >>>is unfair. >>> >>>Sarah. >> >> >>I don't think it's "unfair" to explain basic newsgroup etiquette to a poster, >>especially when it's done politely, as Severi did. >> >>Maybe there is some history here that I don't understand, but I think it's >>strange that you would take issue with such a simple request. >> >>--Peter > > >Had he left it after the first sentence I would have had no problem with it. > >Sarah. Had I left what? You didn't even answer to my 2 replies after your complaint about my advice to Daniel. And what is your problem with my advice? Please read my two replies - I don't want to repeat. With the netiquette I am talking in those messages this conversation would not be necessery... Severi
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.