Newsgroup readers

[Mike Barnes]

On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 20:25:36 +0100, Mike Barnes

[snip]

What actually got my attention was you denying that you'd done it. "I
left in the context", you wrote. As often happens, the drawn-out
attempts at a cover-up turn out to be more significant than the original
misdeed, which I repeat was pretty trivial.

Ha ha! Coverup? When anyone can read the thread history if he
chooses?

Right, attempted cover-ups often don't work. Best not to try.

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 20:25:36 +0100, Mike Barnes

[snip]

What actually got my attention was you denying that you'd done it. "I
left in the context", you wrote. As often happens, the drawn-out
attempts at a cover-up turn out to be more significant than the original
misdeed, which I repeat was pretty trivial.

Ha ha! Coverup? When anyone can read the thread history if he
chooses?

Right, attempted cover-ups often don't work. Best not to try.

The cover-up is in your mind only.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

 

[Mike Barnes]

On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 20:25:36 +0100, Mike Barnes

[snip]

What actually got my attention was you denying that you'd done it. "I
left in the context", you wrote. As often happens, the drawn-out
attempts at a cover-up turn out to be more significant than the original
misdeed, which I repeat was pretty trivial.

Ha ha! Coverup? When anyone can read the thread history if he
chooses?

Right, attempted cover-ups often don't work. Best not to try.

The cover-up is in your mind only.

You pin an awful lot on the fact that people "can read the thread
history". But we can be pretty sure that generally they don't. They can,
but they very rarely do so.

Hell, you don't even read the thread history yourself. How do I know
that? It's obvious from what you post. Here's one example. You posted
this: "I left what I considered to be the relevant context. You appear
to want to be upset about this. Fine, go ahead."

Before posting that borderline-offensive material, you didn't even
bother to check previous postings to see if it was true. Had you done so
you'd have seen that I'd written "As oversnipping goes it scores
probably less than 1/10 so I'm not complaining" showing that you
actually had the wrong idea.

You expect others to read the thread history when you don't do so
yourself. So when you dismiss talk of a cover-up by saying that anyone
can read the thread history, it cuts no ice whatsoever.