|
| In article <3niigkF1mgv7U1@individual.net>, michael adams
<mjadams28@onetel.com> writes
>
>"Janet Tweedy" <jan@lancedal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:PbxBumDiY4EDFwX+@ukonline.co.uk...
>
>
>When posting such offers on Usenet - especially ones which may end
>up on message boards or in archives, it's probably a good idea to
>include the date, not forgetting to include the Year, both at the
>top of the post and within the message body, so it won't get
>inadvertantly snipped. Along with an acceptable timescale for
>replies. All the more so, if the message includes a straightforward
>email address. It's not unknown for new posters on NewsGroups to
>post answers to questions from two or three years back, which they've only
>just come across in the archive. Being totally oblivious to the time
>that's elapsed in between. The same can apply with websites. People
>sometimes assume that all websites are updated on a regular basis,
>more especially ones which aren't dated in any way.
>
Very irritating to have to go through all this palaver to avoid
confusion caused by a site which one is not subscribing to and has no
interest in.
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"
|
|