Cloning software result

Ophelia wrote:

"VanguardLH" wrote in message
...
Ophelia wrote:

VanguardLH wrote ...

I disagree on her submitting discontinuous posts which has become the
meaty side issue of this [sub]thread.

After it was explained nicely, (not by you) I agreed that I ought to have
included the text from the original, but not that I ought not to have
extended the original subject line.

What I do object to is your authoritarian attitude and the reams you
write
to make your point.

You missed the "please" in my first reply. The rest was explanation and
arguing with you and others why replying to the original thread (for
continuity) is polite and starting a new thread instead of adding to the
old thread (disconnection) is impolite.

Next time I might call it a Bunch of Bananas.
If I do ... what do you intend to do about it?

Yep, that was you. You decided to denigrate and got negative
consequence. That was a surprise to you? Tit for tat.

Yes, I'm verbose. Being terse is not necessarily a better mode of
communication. The average attention span of humans

I don't have the time to read screeds and screeds of stuff when someone else
can describe what he prefers in a few sentences. I leave you to it.

"Please post updates to the original thread (instead of a starting a
disconnected thread). Folks searching for help and finding your
original thread may not see your followup response in a different
thread. Since you started a new thread, I'll continue the old
discussion here."

That was my first post (first paragraph). 45 words, 278 characters.
Not really the "screeds" you claim. The other posts were explanation.
What, you never thought a book would have content longer than its title?

En el artículo , VanguardLH
escribió:

Look at my first reply to Ophelia's new thread. Was that verbose

All your posts (like Paul's) are prolix, far too wordy, very much a case
of TL;DR. It's a shame, because when I can be bothered to wade through
your verbiage, you're usually fairly technically accurate.

You also come across as a pompous netkop.

While I'm at it, perhaps you could learn to snip your quotes so that you
adhere to the principles of netiquette you're so fond of propounding.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

Mike Tomlinson wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:

Look at my first reply to Ophelia's new thread. Was that verbose

All your posts (like Paul's) are prolix, far too wordy, ...

You are redundant. Prolix and "too wordy" are the same thing. I am
unconcerned about problems with short attention spans or reading
comprehension. It remains the reader's choice as to how much they read.

... very much a case of TL;DR.

Redundant again. 3 times within the same sentence. Use a thesaurus on
"verbose" to add more same-meaning words in the same sentence.

You also come across as a pompous netkop.

I'd rather be arrogant than a wimp. I said "Please" once. That's my
limit for pleading. I don't keep begging.

While I'm at it, perhaps you could learn to snip your quotes so that
you adhere to the principles of netiquette you're so fond of
propounding.

I don't [normally] snip so much that context is lost. Instead I trim.
You snip when you are NOT going to address someone's comments. You trim
when you do address their comments. For example, at first, I was going
to snip the "wordy" and "netkop" comments in my reply as I was only
going to address your last "quoting" comment. However, I decided to
retort (return your attitude) and address your other comments.

Going down the tree hierarchy of posts (threaded order, not date order):

My 1st reply: trimming would've eliminated the last 2 lines of "Best"
and "O". Oh yes, that would've been so vast a number of bytes to
remove. Newline, "Best", newline, "O".

My 2nd reply: Just what of Mick's post should I have trimmed? His first
sentence (since the rest is context and short enough already).

My 3rd reply: Yep, could've snipped all of the quoted content since my
reply did not specifically address the quoted comments. I decided to
leave it in to irritate Ophelia in having to scroll to see my reply.

My 4th reply: I snipped everything quoted by Rene leaving only his
comment as that was the only topic I addressed in that subthread.

My 5th reply: Yep, could've snipped everything before "Now if your" but
forgot. Trimming is a manual thing so sometimes you forget to do your
chores. And look when I posted. I was probably pretty sleepy.

My 6th reply: Did the trimming. Both the prelude content and Rene's
superfluous non-signature signature were snipped out.

My 7th reply: The only trimming would've been to snip out Mick's first
paragraph. However, when the quoted content is short, I may not trim or
snip it.

My 8th reply: Almost nothing to trim or snip there.

My 9th reply: Oops, missed snipping in that one. Could've left just
Ophelia's last comment about "time to read screeds" and snipped
everything before that.

Oooh, I'm such a bad poster regarding trimming in replies. Uh huh.
I do NOT add cutsy, superfluous, and off-topic signatures, like you.
Other than for identification (without spamming a web site), extremely
rare is a signature on-topic.

En el artículo , VanguardLH
escribió:

TL;TB;DR

Too long, too boring, didn't read.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

Mike Tomlinson wrote:

VanguardLH:

TL;TB;DR

Too long, too boring, didn't read.

Oh, so after reading my post then you claim not to read my post. Uh
huh, we believe you, sure we do. Having expose that you did read it
would show that I do trim. That would deflate your insult so, of
course, you certainly didn't read it.

On 8/15/2015 9:30 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
Mike Tomlinson wrote:

VanguardLH:

TL;TB;DR

Too long, too boring, didn't read.

Oh, so after reading my post then you claim not to read my post. Uh
huh, we believe you, sure we do. Having expose that you did read it
would show that I do trim. That would deflate your insult so, of
course, you certainly didn't read it.



Who's "we"?