In article .com, bryanska
says...

Sorry Doug it's too much work. Interested folks will have to read the
thread. I wish I could supply quotes but summing up the whole thing
will take too much time.

If you don't feel like reading the whole thread, that's OK, but you
might not get the whole "feel".

The numbers come from viewing the thread with the "view as tree" frame
option. You can click on all the responses in a left-hand frame.


You don't seem to realize that people post to USENET from a whole host of
domains, using many different kinds of newsreaders. Very few (only those using
hotmail defaults, perhaps?) 'see' the same kind of presentation you do. So this
stuff about numbered posts and left-hand frames mean nothing whatsoever to just
about anyone you're talking to.

Just about any newsreader has some way to quote the post to which you're
responding. You don't have to summarize the thread, just quote some from the
post you're immediately resonding to. If nothing else, cut-and-paste and make
some indication which are the quotes; which are your responses.

Banty

On 31 Jul 2005 08:24:11 -0700, in misc.consumers.house "bryanska"
wrote:

Lady,

Please see my above post. The responses were full of assumptions about
this guy's intentions, and some of them contained personal barbs
calculated to provoke a response.

I've noticed FOM hasn't posted anything recently. I could draw all
sorts of conclusions from this, but I just don't know why he stopped
posting. It could be he's gotten some answers, became tired of the
thread, or never had time to come back and check.


Could be that he is a troll and he is sitting back and watching to see how far
this thread will go.

In article .com, "bryanska" wrote:
Sorry Doug it's too much work. Interested folks will have to read the
thread. I wish I could supply quotes but summing up the whole thing
will take too much time.

Nobody's asking you to dig through the thread -- just quote the post you're
replying to. You might find this easier to do if you were using a real
newsreader, instead of Google.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article .com,
"bryanska" wrote:
Sorry Doug it's too much work. Interested folks will have to read the
thread. I wish I could supply quotes but summing up the whole thing
will take too much time.

Nobody's asking you to dig through the thread -- just quote the post you're
replying to. You might find this easier to do if you were using a real
newsreader, instead of Google.

the relevant words from him are "too much work". Obviously this is the
guy that talks on his cell phone in the theater because it's too much
work to shut it off.

bryanska wrote:
Pardon me. I was referencing Lady's post, number 61. I have summed up
quotes and main points in my posts 44, 46, 48 and 51.

Using Google it is easy to quote what you are replying to.

At the top of the post you are replying to there is "show options",
click on it then on "reply". That will quote everything in that post.
If you don't want all of it, snip out the unwanted portions (but mark
your snips).

Harry K

Ian wrote:
I haven't checked this against previous messages, but i
imagine he may be responding to the poster who
claimed to be a registered nurse and therefore knew about bodily
orifices.



I am that registered nurse (licensed directly in 2 states and can practice in
another 17 under the Nurse License Compact Act); I do know an asshole when I see
one, and I stand to pee. Nobody would confuse me with a female of any type. Or
even a gentleman....



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:


I am that registered nurse (licensed directly in 2 states and can practice in
another 17 under the Nurse License Compact Act); I do know an asshole when I see
one, and I stand to pee.

Why does the sight of an asshole make you wanna pee? Is that your way
of saluting?

Also, can you get Banty some lithium? Someone or something needs to
calm that twit down some.

In article . com,
"Harry K" wrote:

bryanska wrote:
Pardon me. I was referencing Lady's post, number 61. I have summed up
quotes and main points in my posts 44, 46, 48 and 51.

Using Google it is easy to quote what you are replying to.

At the top of the post you are replying to there is "show options",
click on it then on "reply". That will quote everything in that post.
If you don't want all of it, snip out the unwanted portions (but mark
your snips).

Harry K

he has repeatedly said it's too much work. believe him. And don't
respond to his posts.

If you search in this newgroup or alt.home.repair, you will find my
previous answer to this. Basically, if your fence is inside your
property line, he cannot attach anything to it legally. However,
neighborly, he can ask and you would allow. If your fence is on the
property line, it would be your mistake and the fence may legally
belong to you both. Finally, if the fence is not on the property line,
you should write a letter to all attached property owners saying you
are not ceding your property rights to that six inches or one foot of
land.