Cloning software result

Ophelia wrote:

Many thanks to everyone who responded to my request. The matter as been
resolved quickly and satisfactorily using Macrium Reflect.

I am very grateful for ALL the help and advice

Best

O

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.

Was that the free or paid version of Macrium Reflect?

How long did it take you to clone the drive? Any gotchas?

Have you swapped the cloned drive for the primary drive to ensure the
cloned drive operates the same as the primary drive? That is, have you
tested the cloned drive?

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

Many thanks to everyone who responded to my request. The matter as been
resolved quickly and satisfactorily using Macrium Reflect.

I am very grateful for ALL the help and advice

Best

O

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.

I think "Cloning software result" is plain enough!


Was that the free or paid version of Macrium Reflect?

Free.

How long did it take you to clone the drive? Any gotchas?

About 45 minutes for a 320gb hard drive. No Gotchas!


Have you swapped the cloned drive for the primary drive to ensure the
cloned drive operates the same as the primary drive? That is, have you
tested the cloned drive?

Yes ... yes and it works perfectly.


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 8/13/2015 1:47 PM, Ophelia wrote:


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

Many thanks to everyone who responded to my request. The matter as been
resolved quickly and satisfactorily using Macrium Reflect.

I am very grateful for ALL the help and advice

Best

O

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.

I think "Cloning software result" is plain enough!

Ophelia wrote:

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

Many thanks to everyone who responded to my request. The matter as been
resolved quickly and satisfactorily using Macrium Reflect.

I am very grateful for ALL the help and advice

Best

O

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.

I think "Cloning software result" is plain enough!

Whoosh, went over your head. Do NOT start *new* threads to update *old*
discussions. usenet is not a chat room where updates are disconnected
and splattered out randomly. If you have before used web-based forums,
bulletin boards, or mailing lists then you already know that starting
new threads to update old content creates discontinuity.

New thread = new topic. There are some exceptions, like an update much
later that you've lost your audience (not the case here); however, folks
researching the same problem or the same inquiry may not see the
disconnected reply in a different thread. Unlike chat rooms and texting
where immediacy is expected and messages quickly expire, Usenet has
history that can be utilized. Just because you don't retain its history
doesn't preclude others from using it. It is not only about who is
reading the group now. It is also about who reads these articles at
some later time. Continuity is provided via threading, not by a jumbled
mess of disconnected posts.

Think about e-mail. Someone sends you a message. You want to reply.
Do you actually reply to them to keep the conversation threaded? Or do
you compose a completely disconnected and new message to start the
conversation from scratch? Even if you don't quote anything of their
content in your reply, the References header will thread the
conversation so it is, well, a conversation. Starting a whole new
thread (no References header) means the other party gets a disconnected
and unthread reply from you. Conversations are threaded.

You updated your original thread to thank the responders. So why not
update that same thread about your results in using their suggestions?
I suspect you started a new thread because it was one week later you
tried a suggestion and reported the result. A week is not long in
Usenet but it is in chat rooms and when texting. Also, in case some
searches Usenet and finds your new thread (updating an old thread),
don't expect them to go hunting around for your old thread. Give the
Message-ID for the old thread so they can find it to provide context.

Have you swapped the cloned drive for the primary drive to ensure the
cloned drive operates the same as the primary drive? That is, have you
tested the cloned drive?

Yes ... yes and it works perfectly.

Good to know the product's cloning works and the freeware version is
usable by users that, for example, would like to upsize their drive
capacity.

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

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

Many thanks to everyone who responded to my request. The matter as
been
resolved quickly and satisfactorily using Macrium Reflect.

I am very grateful for ALL the help and advice

Best

O

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.

I think "Cloning software result" is plain enough!

Whoosh, went over your head. Do NOT start *new* threads to update *old*
discussions. usenet is not a chat room where updates are disconnected
and splattered out randomly. If you have before used web-based forums,
bulletin boards, or mailing lists then you already know that starting
new threads to update old content creates discontinuity.

Whoooosh

As it happens I have called it "Cloning Software Result" Next time I might
call it a Bunch of Bananas.

If I do ... what do you intend to do about it?



New thread = new topic. There are some exceptions, like an update much
later that you've lost your audience (not the case here); however, folks
researching the same problem or the same inquiry may not see the
disconnected reply in a different thread. Unlike chat rooms and texting
where immediacy is expected and messages quickly expire, Usenet has
history that can be utilized. Just because you don't retain its history
doesn't preclude others from using it. It is not only about who is
reading the group now. It is also about who reads these articles at
some later time. Continuity is provided via threading, not by a jumbled
mess of disconnected posts.

I see! My original post had 'Cloning Software in the subject line! After
several kind people responded, I decided to share the Cloning Software
*RESULTS*. I realise that might have come as a shock, but I am a polite and
grateful person.

So, (now stay with me) I decided to call it Cloning Software
RESULTS' I can see how that could be a surprise, but you were clever enough
to spot it?? Surprising eh? ....


Think about e-mail. Someone sends you a message. You want to reply.
Do you actually reply to them to keep the conversation threaded? Or do
you compose a completely disconnected and new message to start the
conversation from scratch? Even if you don't quote anything of their
content in your reply, the References header will thread the
conversation so it is, well, a conversation. Starting a whole new
thread (no References header) means the other party gets a disconnected
and unthread reply from you. Conversations are threaded.

You updated your original thread to thank the responders. So why not
update that same thread about your results in using their suggestions?
I suspect you started a new thread because it was one week later you
tried a suggestion and reported the result. A week is not long in
Usenet but it is in chat rooms and when texting. Also, in case some
searches Usenet and finds your new thread (updating an old thread),
don't expect them to go hunting around for your old thread. Give the
Message-ID for the old thread so they can find it to provide context.

I expect nothing. As it happens that mattered not one jot, because you were
clever enough to spot it weren't you?

*smile* You need to know that your bullying doesn't work on me. Trust me
when I say that you will find it is a huge waste of your valuable time.


Have you swapped the cloned drive for the primary drive to ensure the
cloned drive operates the same as the primary drive? That is, have you
tested the cloned drive?

Yes ... yes and it works perfectly.

Good to know the product's cloning works and the freeware version is
usable by users that, for example, would like to upsize their drive
capacity.

You are most welcome *sweet smile*



--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 13/08/2015 21:12:55, Ophelia wrote:
"VanguardLH" wrote in message
...
Ophelia wrote:

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

Many thanks to everyone who responded to my request. The matter as
been
resolved quickly and satisfactorily using Macrium Reflect.

I am very grateful for ALL the help and advice

Best

O

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.

I think "Cloning software result" is plain enough!

Whoosh, went over your head. Do NOT start *new* threads to update *old*
discussions. usenet is not a chat room where updates are disconnected
and splattered out randomly. If you have before used web-based forums,
bulletin boards, or mailing lists then you already know that starting
new threads to update old content creates discontinuity.

Whoooosh

As it happens I have called it "Cloning Software Result" Next time I might
call it a Bunch of Bananas.

If I do ... what do you intend to do about it?

New thread = new topic. There are some exceptions, like an update much
later that you've lost your audience (not the case here); however, folks
researching the same problem or the same inquiry may not see the
disconnected reply in a different thread. Unlike chat rooms and texting
where immediacy is expected and messages quickly expire, Usenet has
history that can be utilized. Just because you don't retain its history
doesn't preclude others from using it. It is not only about who is
reading the group now. It is also about who reads these articles at
some later time. Continuity is provided via threading, not by a jumbled
mess of disconnected posts.

I see! My original post had 'Cloning Software in the subject line! After
several kind people responded, I decided to share the Cloning Software
*RESULTS*. I realise that might have come as a shock, but I am a polite and
grateful person.

So, (now stay with me) I decided to call it Cloning Software
RESULTS' I can see how that could be a surprise, but you were clever enough
to spot it?? Surprising eh? ....

Think about e-mail. Someone sends you a message. You want to reply.
Do you actually reply to them to keep the conversation threaded? Or do
you compose a completely disconnected and new message to start the
conversation from scratch? Even if you don't quote anything of their
content in your reply, the References header will thread the
conversation so it is, well, a conversation. Starting a whole new
thread (no References header) means the other party gets a disconnected
and unthread reply from you. Conversations are threaded.

You updated your original thread to thank the responders. So why not
update that same thread about your results in using their suggestions?
I suspect you started a new thread because it was one week later you
tried a suggestion and reported the result. A week is not long in
Usenet but it is in chat rooms and when texting. Also, in case some
searches Usenet and finds your new thread (updating an old thread),
don't expect them to go hunting around for your old thread. Give the
Message-ID for the old thread so they can find it to provide context.

I expect nothing. As it happens that mattered not one jot, because you were
clever enough to spot it weren't you?

*smile* You need to know that your bullying doesn't work on me. Trust me
when I say that you will find it is a huge waste of your valuable time.

Have you swapped the cloned drive for the primary drive to ensure the
cloned drive operates the same as the primary drive? That is, have you
tested the cloned drive?

Yes ... yes and it works perfectly.

Good to know the product's cloning works and the freeware version is
usable by users that, for example, would like to upsize their drive
capacity.

You are most welcome *sweet smile*

First of all thank you for bothering to post your findings with respect
to the cloning issue. It will set a lot of people at ease when trying
the same cloning technique.

On the other hand I do have to agree with Vanguard's comments. You
should have posted in the original thread as that was the topic you and
everyone else was discussing, all you needed to do was post a reply to
the original thread and change the header of that post to Cloning
software RESULT. It would then stand out within the thread therefore
allowing people referencing it in the future to skim through most of
the other posts to get to the solution. ;-)

--
mick

Ophelia wrote:

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

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

Many thanks to everyone who responded to my request. The matter as
been
resolved quickly and satisfactorily using Macrium Reflect.

I am very grateful for ALL the help and advice

Best

O

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.

I think "Cloning software result" is plain enough!

Whoosh, went over your head. Do NOT start *new* threads to update *old*
discussions. usenet is not a chat room where updates are disconnected
and splattered out randomly. If you have before used web-based forums,
bulletin boards, or mailing lists then you already know that starting
new threads to update old content creates discontinuity.

Whoooosh

As it happens I have called it "Cloning Software Result" Next time I might
call it a Bunch of Bananas.

If I do ... what do you intend to do about it?

New thread = new topic. There are some exceptions, like an update much
later that you've lost your audience (not the case here); however, folks
researching the same problem or the same inquiry may not see the
disconnected reply in a different thread. Unlike chat rooms and texting
where immediacy is expected and messages quickly expire, Usenet has
history that can be utilized. Just because you don't retain its history
doesn't preclude others from using it. It is not only about who is
reading the group now. It is also about who reads these articles at
some later time. Continuity is provided via threading, not by a jumbled
mess of disconnected posts.

I see! My original post had 'Cloning Software in the subject line! After
several kind people responded, I decided to share the Cloning Software
*RESULTS*. I realise that might have come as a shock, but I am a polite and
grateful person.

So, (now stay with me) I decided to call it Cloning Software
RESULTS' I can see how that could be a surprise, but you were clever enough
to spot it?? Surprising eh? ....

Think about e-mail. Someone sends you a message. You want to reply.
Do you actually reply to them to keep the conversation threaded? Or do
you compose a completely disconnected and new message to start the
conversation from scratch? Even if you don't quote anything of their
content in your reply, the References header will thread the
conversation so it is, well, a conversation. Starting a whole new
thread (no References header) means the other party gets a disconnected
and unthread reply from you. Conversations are threaded.

You updated your original thread to thank the responders. So why not
update that same thread about your results in using their suggestions?
I suspect you started a new thread because it was one week later you
tried a suggestion and reported the result. A week is not long in
Usenet but it is in chat rooms and when texting. Also, in case some
searches Usenet and finds your new thread (updating an old thread),
don't expect them to go hunting around for your old thread. Give the
Message-ID for the old thread so they can find it to provide context.

I expect nothing. As it happens that mattered not one jot, because you were
clever enough to spot it weren't you?

*smile* You need to know that your bullying doesn't work on me. Trust me
when I say that you will find it is a huge waste of your valuable time.

Have you swapped the cloned drive for the primary drive to ensure the
cloned drive operates the same as the primary drive? That is, have you
tested the cloned drive?

Yes ... yes and it works perfectly.

Good to know the product's cloning works and the freeware version is
usable by users that, for example, would like to upsize their drive
capacity.

You are most welcome *sweet smile*

Since you are an anarchist which means not polite, I will do just like
you did: I'll start a new thread sometime later for my reply because,
gee, the Subject line will somewhat similar although not the same. See
my other disconnected new thread when it shows up later. Enjoy your own
style exhibited by others. Hey, your logic so it must be good for you.

mick wrote:

On the other hand I do have to agree with Vanguard's comments. You
should have posted in the original thread as that was the topic you and
everyone else was discussing, all you needed to do was post a reply to
the original thread and change the header of that post to Cloning
software RESULT. It would then stand out within the thread therefore
allowing people referencing it in the future to skim through most of
the other posts to get to the solution. ;-)

Actually the Subject header should NOT be changed when replying.
Although clients can use the References header for its intended purpose
of creating a hierarchical list of posts to thread them together into a
conversation, not all clients use that header and several do not add it
in a reply (mostly web app e-mail clients). The lack of a References
header (which is added by the client, not the server) means there is no
conversation but a series of disconnected statements. Ophelia is
probably too new to Usenet to know about the past use of the Subject
header to thread posts into a conversation, or why it was unreliable
(different threads with the same Subject got mixed together) hence the
need for the References header. Dissimilar Subject headers means
seperate threads. There is no "well, my later *new* thread had a
similar Subject so it should be part of a prior thread with a different
Subject." Uh, no. If the References header is missing (which is still
a problem 15 years after it was defined by RFC), grouping posts by the
Subject header is an old method; however, often Subjects are terse so
they can collide (same Subject used for different threads) which means
grouping by Subject will group together unrelated posts. While that is
a problem, changing the Subject string to a different value is
guaranteed to obviate grouping related posts by Subject.

Subject should remain constant, even if there is a mispelled word. The
References header should be used, if present, to thread the posts
together and the Subject header purposed for grouping only as a backup.
If you believe (often wrongly) there is a need to change the Subject
then the de facto standard is to use your new Subject string postfixed
by "(was: oldsubject)". Then someone doing research on an issue can
search on oldsubject to find the other posts that were in the thread
and perhaps catch someone who decided to disconnect from the old thread
and start a new one. However, even that de facto netiquette means of
changing the Subject means the posts will not group together into a
conversation if Subject must be used because References is missing.

When responding to Ophelia, perhaps she would really enjoy others
exhibiting her same anarchistic logic and newbie posting style by
starting new threads with different Subject lines instead of replying to
her old thread. Then *she* can enjoy hunting around for any and all the
posts that could've been threaded together into a *conversation*.

On 8/13/2015 4:56 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
Ophelia wrote:

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

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

Many thanks to everyone who responded to my request. The matter as
been
resolved quickly and satisfactorily using Macrium Reflect.

I am very grateful for ALL the help and advice

Best

O

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.

I think "Cloning software result" is plain enough!

Whoosh, went over your head. Do NOT start *new* threads to update *old*
discussions. usenet is not a chat room where updates are disconnected
and splattered out randomly. If you have before used web-based forums,
bulletin boards, or mailing lists then you already know that starting
new threads to update old content creates discontinuity.

Whoooosh

As it happens I have called it "Cloning Software Result" Next time I might
call it a Bunch of Bananas.

If I do ... what do you intend to do about it?

New thread = new topic. There are some exceptions, like an update much
later that you've lost your audience (not the case here); however, folks
researching the same problem or the same inquiry may not see the
disconnected reply in a different thread. Unlike chat rooms and texting
where immediacy is expected and messages quickly expire, Usenet has
history that can be utilized. Just because you don't retain its history
doesn't preclude others from using it. It is not only about who is
reading the group now. It is also about who reads these articles at
some later time. Continuity is provided via threading, not by a jumbled
mess of disconnected posts.

I see! My original post had 'Cloning Software in the subject line! After
several kind people responded, I decided to share the Cloning Software
*RESULTS*. I realise that might have come as a shock, but I am a polite and
grateful person.

So, (now stay with me) I decided to call it Cloning Software
RESULTS' I can see how that could be a surprise, but you were clever enough
to spot it?? Surprising eh? ....

Think about e-mail. Someone sends you a message. You want to reply.
Do you actually reply to them to keep the conversation threaded? Or do
you compose a completely disconnected and new message to start the
conversation from scratch? Even if you don't quote anything of their
content in your reply, the References header will thread the
conversation so it is, well, a conversation. Starting a whole new
thread (no References header) means the other party gets a disconnected
and unthread reply from you. Conversations are threaded.

You updated your original thread to thank the responders. So why not
update that same thread about your results in using their suggestions?
I suspect you started a new thread because it was one week later you
tried a suggestion and reported the result. A week is not long in
Usenet but it is in chat rooms and when texting. Also, in case some
searches Usenet and finds your new thread (updating an old thread),
don't expect them to go hunting around for your old thread. Give the
Message-ID for the old thread so they can find it to provide context.

I expect nothing. As it happens that mattered not one jot, because you were
clever enough to spot it weren't you?

*smile* You need to know that your bullying doesn't work on me. Trust me
when I say that you will find it is a huge waste of your valuable time.

Have you swapped the cloned drive for the primary drive to ensure the
cloned drive operates the same as the primary drive? That is, have you
tested the cloned drive?

Yes ... yes and it works perfectly.

Good to know the product's cloning works and the freeware version is
usable by users that, for example, would like to upsize their drive
capacity.

You are most welcome *sweet smile*

Since you are an anarchist which means not polite, I will do just like
you did: I'll start a new thread sometime later for my reply because,
gee, the Subject line will somewhat similar although not the same. See
my other disconnected new thread when it shows up later. Enjoy your own
style exhibited by others. Hey, your logic so it must be good for you.


I think You take yourself and Usenet a little (LOT) too seriously VanguardH.
Are you a netcop? if so show your credentials

Rene
!

Rene Lamontagne wrote:

I think You take yourself and Usenet a little (LOT) too seriously VanguardH.
Are you a netcop? if so show your credentials

Never heard of netiquette? It exists in Usenet, too. Ophelia is or
appears to be new to Usenet. Just like with children or with adults new
to an environ, they need training to know the social norms of their
community. Trolls embrace anarchy. Are you claiming Ophelia is a
troll? Could be since she has indicates that she will continue starting
new threads instead of replying to her old threads. Some trolls are
very adept at protraying a noob.

Look at my first reply to Ophelia's new thread. Was that verbose or
condemning? It was a simple and short prod to train netiquette
practiced here in Usenet and not a style to which she may have become
accustomed to in chat rooms or when texting. The whole subthread
thereafter was explanation and elaboration so it blossomed into a
verbose side issue.

No one needs credentials other than perhaps history as a regular to
announce what netiquette is expected in Usenet. In some countries,
pointing 2 finger up indicates victory and is a positive gesture. In
other countries, the vee symbol (with palm inward) is an insult. So
different communities have different netiquette. While there are trolls
that despise netiquette (except the well-trained ones), those wanting to
participate here and do so for awhile should know what is netiquette
here.

On 13/08/2015 23:29:30, VanguardLH wrote:
mick wrote:

On the other hand I do have to agree with Vanguard's comments. You
should have posted in the original thread as that was the topic you and
everyone else was discussing, all you needed to do was post a reply to
the original thread and change the header of that post to Cloning
software RESULT. It would then stand out within the thread therefore
allowing people referencing it in the future to skim through most of
the other posts to get to the solution. ;-)

Actually the Subject header should NOT be changed when replying.
Although clients can use the References header for its intended purpose
of creating a hierarchical list of posts to thread them together into a
conversation, not all clients use that header and several do not add it
in a reply (mostly web app e-mail clients). The lack of a References
header (which is added by the client, not the server) means there is no
conversation but a series of disconnected statements. Ophelia is
probably too new to Usenet to know about the past use of the Subject
header to thread posts into a conversation, or why it was unreliable
(different threads with the same Subject got mixed together) hence the
need for the References header. Dissimilar Subject headers means
seperate threads. There is no "well, my later *new* thread had a
similar Subject so it should be part of a prior thread with a different
Subject." Uh, no. If the References header is missing (which is still
a problem 15 years after it was defined by RFC), grouping posts by the
Subject header is an old method; however, often Subjects are terse so
they can collide (same Subject used for different threads) which means
grouping by Subject will group together unrelated posts. While that is
a problem, changing the Subject string to a different value is
guaranteed to obviate grouping related posts by Subject.

Subject should remain constant, even if there is a mispelled word. The
References header should be used, if present, to thread the posts
together and the Subject header purposed for grouping only as a backup.
If you believe (often wrongly) there is a need to change the Subject
then the de facto standard is to use your new Subject string postfixed
by "(was: oldsubject)". Then someone doing research on an issue can
search on oldsubject to find the other posts that were in the thread
and perhaps catch someone who decided to disconnect from the old thread
and start a new one. However, even that de facto netiquette means of
changing the Subject means the posts will not group together into a
conversation if Subject must be used because References is missing.

When responding to Ophelia, perhaps she would really enjoy others
exhibiting her same anarchistic logic and newbie posting style by
starting new threads with different Subject lines instead of replying to
her old thread. Then *she* can enjoy hunting around for any and all the
posts that could've been threaded together into a *conversation*.

Um, whenever I have amended or someone else has amended the subject
line, I have never had a problem with any newsreader following the
entire thread, or when searching the web, there have been many
occasions I have come across where the subject line has had
(RESOVLED),(RESULT) or (SOLVED) suffixed but the entire thread is still
intact.

I was having a quick count of all the posts that have gone by since
Ophelia's original post, about 200 on this group. Her original post
had gone off the radar on my newsreader and her new post/thread did not
jog my memory so I do agree with you that she should have added to the
original thread which would have then brought the original thread to
the fore. I also posted in the original thread so once again a reply
to that would have flagged it up again. I estimate that there have
been around 28 to 30,000 posts that have passed through my reader since
that first post so Ophelia's 'result' posting hardly got a second
glance as it seemed irrelevant to anything other than a thank you.

What is worse, a web app email client or a forum, I haven't got the
time of day for either. :-)

--
mick

On 8/13/2015 6:16 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
Rene Lamontagne wrote:

I think You take yourself and Usenet a little (LOT) too seriously VanguardH.
Are you a netcop? if so show your credentials

Never heard of netiquette? It exists in Usenet, too. Ophelia is or

Snip a lot of dry grass.

Yes I know and follow netiquette rules.
Now if your so Gung Ho about this why aren't you hounding the poster
called Good Guy on these newsgroups?
He breaks every usenet rule ever written on a daily basis!!!
Come on Sic Em Rover.

Rene

On 14/08/2015 00:16:40, VanguardLH wrote:
Rene Lamontagne wrote:

I think You take yourself and Usenet a little (LOT) too seriously VanguardH.
Are you a netcop? if so show your credentials

Never heard of netiquette? It exists in Usenet, too. Ophelia is or
appears to be new to Usenet. Just like with children or with adults new
to an environ, they need training to know the social norms of their
community. Trolls embrace anarchy. Are you claiming Ophelia is a
troll? Could be since she has indicates that she will continue starting
new threads instead of replying to her old threads. Some trolls are
very adept at protraying a noob.

Look at my first reply to Ophelia's new thread. Was that verbose or
condemning? It was a simple and short prod to train netiquette
practiced here in Usenet and not a style to which she may have become
accustomed to in chat rooms or when texting. The whole subthread
thereafter was explanation and elaboration so it blossomed into a
verbose side issue.

No one needs credentials other than perhaps history as a regular to
announce what netiquette is expected in Usenet. In some countries,
pointing 2 finger up indicates victory and is a positive gesture. In
other countries, the vee symbol (with palm inward) is an insult. So
different communities have different netiquette. While there are trolls
that despise netiquette (except the well-trained ones), those wanting to
participate here and do so for awhile should know what is netiquette
here.

It is good to have and retain netiquette, self discipline. Without it
newsgroups turn into anarchy, get infiltrated with the less desirables
of society and those that want to carry on move off onto a moderated
forum, which most IMO are difficult to follow with conversations not
being threaded.

Sadly, I think Ophelia's attitude with her statement - "If I do ...
what do you intend to do about it?" - negates her credibility of
posting her thank you in the first place.

--
mick

On 8/13/2015 6:58 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 8/13/2015 4:56 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
Ophelia wrote:

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

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

Many thanks to everyone who responded to my request. The matter as
been
resolved quickly and satisfactorily using Macrium Reflect.

I am very grateful for ALL the help and advice

Best

O

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.

I think "Cloning software result" is plain enough!

Whoosh, went over your head. Do NOT start *new* threads to update
*old*
discussions. usenet is not a chat room where updates are disconnected
and splattered out randomly. If you have before used web-based forums,
bulletin boards, or mailing lists then you already know that starting
new threads to update old content creates discontinuity.

Whoooosh

As it happens I have called it "Cloning Software Result" Next time I
might
call it a Bunch of Bananas.

If I do ... what do you intend to do about it?

New thread = new topic. There are some exceptions, like an update much
later that you've lost your audience (not the case here); however,
folks
researching the same problem or the same inquiry may not see the
disconnected reply in a different thread. Unlike chat rooms and
texting
where immediacy is expected and messages quickly expire, Usenet has
history that can be utilized. Just because you don't retain its
history
doesn't preclude others from using it. It is not only about who is
reading the group now. It is also about who reads these articles at
some later time. Continuity is provided via threading, not by a
jumbled
mess of disconnected posts.

I see! My original post had 'Cloning Software in the subject line!
After
several kind people responded, I decided to share the Cloning Software
*RESULTS*. I realise that might have come as a shock, but I am a
polite and
grateful person.

So, (now stay with me) I decided to call it Cloning Software
RESULTS' I can see how that could be a surprise, but you were clever
enough
to spot it?? Surprising eh? ....

Think about e-mail. Someone sends you a message. You want to reply.
Do you actually reply to them to keep the conversation threaded? Or do
you compose a completely disconnected and new message to start the
conversation from scratch? Even if you don't quote anything of their
content in your reply, the References header will thread the
conversation so it is, well, a conversation. Starting a whole new
thread (no References header) means the other party gets a disconnected
and unthread reply from you. Conversations are threaded.

You updated your original thread to thank the responders. So why not
update that same thread about your results in using their suggestions?
I suspect you started a new thread because it was one week later you
tried a suggestion and reported the result. A week is not long in
Usenet but it is in chat rooms and when texting. Also, in case some
searches Usenet and finds your new thread (updating an old thread),
don't expect them to go hunting around for your old thread. Give the
Message-ID for the old thread so they can find it to provide context.

I expect nothing. As it happens that mattered not one jot, because
you were
clever enough to spot it weren't you?

*smile* You need to know that your bullying doesn't work on me.
Trust me
when I say that you will find it is a huge waste of your valuable time.

Have you swapped the cloned drive for the primary drive to ensure the
cloned drive operates the same as the primary drive? That is,
have you
tested the cloned drive?

Yes ... yes and it works perfectly.

Good to know the product's cloning works and the freeware version is
usable by users that, for example, would like to upsize their drive
capacity.

You are most welcome *sweet smile*

Since you are an anarchist which means not polite, I will do just like
you did: I'll start a new thread sometime later for my reply because,
gee, the Subject line will somewhat similar although not the same. See
my other disconnected new thread when it shows up later. Enjoy your own
style exhibited by others. Hey, your logic so it must be good for you.


I think You take yourself and Usenet a little (LOT) too seriously
VanguardH.
Are you a netcop? if so show your credentials

Rene
!




+10


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 8/13/2015 7:16 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
Rene Lamontagne wrote:

I think You take yourself and Usenet a little (LOT) too seriously VanguardH.
Are you a netcop? if so show your credentials

Never heard of netiquette? It exists in Usenet, too. Ophelia is or
appears to be new to Usenet. Just like with children or with adults new
to an environ, they need training to know the social norms of their
community. Trolls embrace anarchy. Are you claiming Ophelia is a
troll? Could be since she has indicates that she will continue starting
new threads instead of replying to her old threads. Some trolls are
very adept at protraying a noob.

Look at my first reply to Ophelia's new thread. Was that verbose or
condemning? It was a simple and short prod to train netiquette
practiced here in Usenet and not a style to which she may have become
accustomed to in chat rooms or when texting. The whole subthread
thereafter was explanation and elaboration so it blossomed into a
verbose side issue.

No one needs credentials other than perhaps history as a regular to
announce what netiquette is expected in Usenet. In some countries,
pointing 2 finger up indicates victory and is a positive gesture. In
other countries, the vee symbol (with palm inward) is an insult. So
different communities have different netiquette. While there are trolls
that despise netiquette (except the well-trained ones), those wanting to
participate here and do so for awhile should know what is netiquette
here.


V get over yourself.



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---