Question:

I have a general question about some of the posts I’ve seen on these newsgroups. Sometimes I see replies to posts where I have not seen the original. Often the material quoted does not include the original author’s name and e-mail address. How do I know if there ever was an original? Would people please retain the name and e-mail address when directly quoting someone? This would help, if it is felt useful to respond directly to the original person posting – perhaps a personal message that is unsuitable for the newsgroup. Thanks! Carol and the Carwyn Silky Terriers [crossposted - alt.med.veterinary, rec.pets.dogs.behavior, rec.pets.dogs.health, rec.pets.dogs.breeds, rec.pets.dogs.activities, rec.pets.dogs.misc]

Response:

> I have a general question about some of the posts I’ve seen on these > newsgroups. Sometimes I see replies to posts where I have not seen the > original. Often the material quoted does not include the original > author’s name and e-mail address. How do I know if there ever was an > original? > Would people please retain the name and e-mail address when directly > quoting someone? This would help, if it is felt useful to respond > directly to the original person posting – perhaps a personal message > that is unsuitable for the newsgroup.

Yes, you’re right.  People should include the id of the person they’re reply to.  However, there should usually be a line at the top of the message labeled "References".  Following this there should be a list of numbers.  Click the highest number and that is the message being replied to.  This may vary from one news reader to another, but it usually works that way. — Carey Gregory

Response:

>> I have a general question about some of the posts I’ve seen on these > newsgroups. Sometimes I see replies to posts where I have not seen the > original. >Yes, you’re right.  People should include the id of the person they’re >reply to.  

This is not only a basic courtesy, it also establishes fair use of the original posting – to which the poster automatically holds copyright. Strictly speaking, quoting without attribution is plagiarism. >However, there should usually be a line at the top of the >message labeled "References".  Following this there should be a list of >numbers.  

It sometimes happens that Poster A posts something, Poster B sees it and follows up, and Poster A then cancels the original message.  In such cases the followup (with its quoted text) is all that remains. – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - Bill Thacker            Lucent Technologies    Network Wireless Systems

Response:

> I have a general question about some of the posts I’ve seen on these > newsgroups. Sometimes I see replies to posts where I have not seen the > original. Often the material quoted does not include the original > author’s name and e-mail address. How do I know if there ever was an > original?

Carol, A good number of these are due to Ken, who insists upon creating a new thread out of old ones by deleting the original post/content of the post/intent of the post/etc. and forwarding a small piece of something (always about himself), with his reply (usually having nothing to do with dogs, but himself once again). I have sent him private email (I thought it would be helpful to model for him appropriate netiquette) telling him that this method is extremely confusing for those who are trying to learn something from a group.  Of course, I got a threatening response back.  Since he is clearly not going to make reading posts in these newsgroups any easier, I’d like to follow up your plea with one of my own–*please* do not respond to Ken’s "new threads", unless they are a legitimate spinoff of dog behavior or issues from an original thread on another dog-related issue.  Even if a thread gets long-winded and lasts a year, at least we can follow the controversy from a logical start & end point.                                        n, Sandi Shrager                      _/ | _ School of Social Work             /’  `’/ University of Washington        <~    .’                               _/      |                             _/      `.`.                        ____/ ‘   __ | |______

Response:

> I have a general question about some of the posts I’ve seen on these > newsgroups. Sometimes I see replies to posts where I have not seen the > original. Often the material quoted does not include the original > author’s name and e-mail address. How do I know if there ever was an > original?

Actually, it’s probably best to stay out of this kinda conversation unless you read the first, original post, cuz it’s probably way outta line from what the original was (like my post about a dog web page for rescues, breeders & generally dogs that need homes managed to turn into a debate about whether wolf hybrids could get rabies shots).  Now I know the whole story, but there are a lotta people out there that dont, so you probably don’t want to immerse yourself in unknown clutter.   Emily

Response:

>I have sent him private email (I thought it would be helpful to model for >him appropriate netiquette) telling him that this method is extremely >confusing for those who are trying to learn something from a group.  Of >course, I got a threatening response back.  

Sandy, If you really got threatening Email from Ken, please forward it to his server along with a complaint.  They have already stated they would could him off, if we could provide either threatening or vulgar posts, but he’s been very careful online, hence, his form letters. Susan

Response:

> I have a general question about some of the posts I’ve seen on these > newsgroups. Sometimes I see replies to posts where I have not seen the > original. Often the material quoted does not include the original > author’s name and e-mail address. How do I know if there ever was an > original?

Actually, it’s probably best to stay out of this kinda conversation unless you read the first, original post, cuz it’s probably way outta line from what the original was (like my post about a dog web page for rescues, breeders & generally dogs that need homes managed to turn into a debate about whether wolf hybrids could get rabies shots).  Now I know the whole story, but there are a lotta people out there that dont, so you probably don’t want to immerse yourself in unknown clutter.   Emily

Response:

>I have sent him private email (I thought it would be helpful to model for >him appropriate netiquette) telling him that this method is extremely >confusing for those who are trying to learn something from a group.  Of >course, I got a threatening response back.  

Sandy, If you really got threatening Email from Ken, please forward it to his server along with a complaint.  They have already stated they would could him off, if we could provide either threatening or vulgar posts, but he’s been very careful online, hence, his form letters. Susan

Response:

> I have a general question about some of the posts I’ve seen on these > newsgroups. Sometimes I see replies to posts where I have not seen the > original. Often the material quoted does not include the original > author’s name and e-mail address. How do I know if there ever was an > original?

Carol, A good number of these are due to Ken, who insists upon creating a new thread out of old ones by deleting the original post/content of the post/intent of the post/etc. and forwarding a small piece of something (always about himself), with his reply (usually having nothing to do with dogs, but himself once again). I have sent him private email (I thought it would be helpful to model for him appropriate netiquette) telling him that this method is extremely confusing for those who are trying to learn something from a group.  Of course, I got a threatening response back.  Since he is clearly not going to make reading posts in these newsgroups any easier, I’d like to follow up your plea with one of my own–*please* do not respond to Ken’s "new threads", unless they are a legitimate spinoff of dog behavior or issues from an original thread on another dog-related issue.  Even if a thread gets long-winded and lasts a year, at least we can follow the controversy from a logical start & end point.                                        n, Sandi Shrager                      _/ | _ School of Social Work             /’  `’/ University of Washington        <~    .’                               _/      |                             _/      `.`.                        ____/ ‘   __ | |______

Response:

I have a general question about some of the posts I’ve seen on these newsgroups. Sometimes I see replies to posts where I have not seen the original. Often the material quoted does not include the original author’s name and e-mail address. How do I know if there ever was an original? Would people please retain the name and e-mail address when directly quoting someone? This would help, if it is felt useful to respond directly to the original person posting – perhaps a personal message that is unsuitable for the newsgroup. Thanks! Carol and the Carwyn Silky Terriers [crossposted - alt.med.veterinary, rec.pets.dogs.behavior, rec.pets.dogs.health, rec.pets.dogs.breeds, rec.pets.dogs.activities, rec.pets.dogs.misc]

Response:

> I have a general question about some of the posts I’ve seen on these > newsgroups. Sometimes I see replies to posts where I have not seen the > original. Often the material quoted does not include the original > author’s name and e-mail address. How do I know if there ever was an > original? > Would people please retain the name and e-mail address when directly > quoting someone? This would help, if it is felt useful to respond > directly to the original person posting – perhaps a personal message > that is unsuitable for the newsgroup.

Yes, you’re right.  People should include the id of the person they’re reply to.  However, there should usually be a line at the top of the message labeled "References".  Following this there should be a list of numbers.  Click the highest number and that is the message being replied to.  This may vary from one news reader to another, but it usually works that way. — Carey Gregory

Response:

>> I have a general question about some of the posts I’ve seen on these > newsgroups. Sometimes I see replies to posts where I have not seen the > original. >Yes, you’re right.  People should include the id of the person they’re >reply to.  

This is not only a basic courtesy, it also establishes fair use of the original posting – to which the poster automatically holds copyright. Strictly speaking, quoting without attribution is plagiarism. >However, there should usually be a line at the top of the >message labeled "References".  Following this there should be a list of >numbers.  

It sometimes happens that Poster A posts something, Poster B sees it and follows up, and Poster A then cancels the original message.  In such cases the followup (with its quoted text) is all that remains. – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - Bill Thacker            Lucent Technologies    Network Wireless Systems

Response:

> I have a general question about some of the posts I’ve seen on these > newsgroups. Sometimes I see replies to posts where I have not seen the > original. Often the material quoted does not include the original > author’s name and e-mail address. How do I know if there ever was an > original?

Actually, it’s probably best to stay out of this kinda conversation unless you read the first, original post, cuz it’s probably way outta line from what the original was (like my post about a dog web page for rescues, breeders & generally dogs that need homes managed to turn into a debate about whether wolf hybrids could get rabies shots).  Now I know the whole story, but there are a lotta people out there that dont, so you probably don’t want to immerse yourself in unknown clutter.   Emily

Response:

>I have sent him private email (I thought it would be helpful to model for >him appropriate netiquette) telling him that this method is extremely >confusing for those who are trying to learn something from a group.  Of >course, I got a threatening response back.  

Sandy, If you really got threatening Email from Ken, please forward it to his server along with a complaint.  They have already stated they would could him off, if we could provide either threatening or vulgar posts, but he’s been very careful online, hence, his form letters. Susan

Response:

> I have a general question about some of the posts I’ve seen on these > newsgroups. Sometimes I see replies to posts where I have not seen the > original. Often the material quoted does not include the original > author’s name and e-mail address. How do I know if there ever was an > original?

Carol, A good number of these are due to Ken, who insists upon creating a new thread out of old ones by deleting the original post/content of the post/intent of the post/etc. and forwarding a small piece of something (always about himself), with his reply (usually having nothing to do with dogs, but himself once again). I have sent him private email (I thought it would be helpful to model for him appropriate netiquette) telling him that this method is extremely confusing for those who are trying to learn something from a group.  Of course, I got a threatening response back.  Since he is clearly not going to make reading posts in these newsgroups any easier, I’d like to follow up your plea with one of my own–*please* do not respond to Ken’s "new threads", unless they are a legitimate spinoff of dog behavior or issues from an original thread on another dog-related issue.  Even if a thread gets long-winded and lasts a year, at least we can follow the controversy from a logical start & end point.                                        n, Sandi Shrager                      _/ | _ School of Social Work             /’  `’/ University of Washington        <~    .’                               _/      |                             _/      `.`.                        ____/ ‘   __ | |______

Response:

I have a general question about some of the posts I’ve seen on these newsgroups. Sometimes I see replies to posts where I have not seen the original. Often the material quoted does not include the original author’s name and e-mail address. How do I know if there ever was an original? Would people please retain the name and e-mail address when directly quoting someone? This would help, if it is felt useful to respond directly to the original person posting – perhaps a personal message that is unsuitable for the newsgroup. Thanks! Carol and the Carwyn Silky Terriers [crossposted - alt.med.veterinary, rec.pets.dogs.behavior, rec.pets.dogs.health, rec.pets.dogs.breeds, rec.pets.dogs.activities, rec.pets.dogs.misc]

Response:

> I have a general question about some of the posts I’ve seen on these > newsgroups. Sometimes I see replies to posts where I have not seen the > original. Often the material quoted does not include the original > author’s name and e-mail address. How do I know if there ever was an > original? > Would people please retain the name and e-mail address when directly > quoting someone? This would help, if it is felt useful to respond > directly to the original person posting – perhaps a personal message > that is unsuitable for the newsgroup.

Yes, you’re right.  People should include the id of the person they’re reply to.  However, there should usually be a line at the top of the message labeled "References".  Following this there should be a list of numbers.  Click the highest number and that is the message being replied to.  This may vary from one news reader to another, but it usually works that way. — Carey Gregory

Response:

>> I have a general question about some of the posts I’ve seen on these > newsgroups. Sometimes I see replies to posts where I have not seen the > original. >Yes, you’re right.  People should include the id of the person they’re >reply to.  

This is not only a basic courtesy, it also establishes fair use of the original posting – to which the poster automatically holds copyright. Strictly speaking, quoting without attribution is plagiarism. >However, there should usually be a line at the top of the >message labeled "References".  Following this there should be a list of >numbers.  

It sometimes happens that Poster A posts something, Poster B sees it and follows up, and Poster A then cancels the original message.  In such cases the followup (with its quoted text) is all that remains. – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - Bill Thacker            Lucent Technologies    Network Wireless Systems

Response: