Wow, such sarcastic and nasty responses to my expression of gratitude. I found this page when I googled how to get off a stuck vacuum cleaner attachment. I used the hairdryer trick and happily it worked, but I don't feel so grateful after the nastiness expressed by the four responses. Sort yourselves out.

On 3/23/2019 8:01 PM, wrote:
Wow, such sarcastic and nasty responses to my expression of gratitude. I found this page when I googled how to get off a stuck vacuum cleaner attachment. I used the hairdryer trick and happily it worked, but I don't feel so grateful after the nastiness expressed by the four responses. Sort yourselves out.


How are we supposed to know what you are talking about when you left out
important information from a 19 year old post? Good chance the guy you
replied to is long gone or even dead.

Had you mentioned the hair dryer trick the first time it would have made
sense and possibly helped others. CONTEXT. It is important.

On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 22:28:45 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 3/23/2019 8:01 PM, wrote:
Wow, such sarcastic and nasty responses to my expression of gratitude.
I found this page when I googled how to get off a stuck vacuum cleaner attachment.
I used the hairdryer trick and happily it worked, but I don't feel so grateful
after the nastiness expressed by the four responses. Sort yourselves out.


How are we supposed to know what you are talking about when you left out
important information from a 19 year old post? Good chance the guy you
replied to is long gone or even dead.
Had you mentioned the hair dryer trick the first time it would have made
sense and possibly helped others. CONTEXT. It is important.



Ed .. Yo ! Ed ! .. you're replying to someone
who is replying to a 19 year old post - bad enough -
... but the post is about getting a vac attachment off !
.. the depths to whch we have sunk ..
.. and alas I'm hereby adding to the futility of it all.
Fie.
John T.

On 3/23/2019 5:01 PM, wrote:
Wow, such sarcastic and nasty responses to my expression of gratitude. I found this page when I googled how to get off a stuck vacuum cleaner attachment. I used the hairdryer trick and happily it worked, but I don't feel so grateful after the nastiness expressed by the four responses. Sort yourselves out.


The problem is that google groups is posting a usenet thread on their
web site as if it is their own product. People who use usenet to view
newsgroups do not see ancient parts of ancient threads, so it is
accepted practice to quote relevant info in replies to old threads so
that readers can make sense of the conversation.

On 3/24/19 12:43 AM, Bob F wrote:
The problem is that google groups is posting a usenet thread on their web site as if it is their own product.

Exactly! It's not uncommon for democrats to take the work of others and repackage it as their own.

On Sunday, March 24, 2019 at 12:44:11 AM UTC-4, Bob F wrote:
On 3/23/2019 5:01 PM, wrote:
Wow, such sarcastic and nasty responses to my expression of gratitude. I found this page when I googled how to get off a stuck vacuum cleaner attachment. I used the hairdryer trick and happily it worked, but I don't feel so grateful after the nastiness expressed by the four responses. Sort yourselves out.


The problem is that google groups is posting a usenet thread on their
web site as if it is their own product. People who use usenet to view
newsgroups do not see ancient parts of ancient threads, so it is
accepted practice to quote relevant info in replies to old threads so
that readers can make sense of the conversation.

I use Google Groups and saw all the ancient parts, but I wasn't going
to wade through and read all of them to try to guess what the new poster
was replying to. I still haven't read all the replies, but I'm sure you
will agree that most times there are many different suggestions on what
to try, what to do. At the end of an old thread this new poster just said
"thanks, that worked great", trimming off everything that they replied to,
including whoever made the post. So, there was no way to even know which
poster they replied to or what worked. Unless one were to read ALL the
posts and find that there was only one thing suggested. Like someone said,
if they just said the hairdryer trick worked, then everyone would know.

On 3/24/2019 12:15 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 22:28:45 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 3/23/2019 8:01 PM, wrote:
Wow, such sarcastic and nasty responses to my expression of gratitude.
I found this page when I googled how to get off a stuck vacuum cleaner attachment.
I used the hairdryer trick and happily it worked, but I don't feel so grateful
after the nastiness expressed by the four responses. Sort yourselves out.


How are we supposed to know what you are talking about when you left out
important information from a 19 year old post? Good chance the guy you
replied to is long gone or even dead.
Had you mentioned the hair dryer trick the first time it would have made
sense and possibly helped others. CONTEXT. It is important.



Ed .. Yo ! Ed ! .. you're replying to someone
who is replying to a 19 year old post - bad enough -
.. but the post is about getting a vac attachment off !
.. the depths to whch we have sunk ..
.. and alas I'm hereby adding to the futility of it all.
Fie.
John T.


I wonder if he gets his wife off.

On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 14:26:46 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 3/24/2019 12:15 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 22:28:45 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 3/23/2019 8:01 PM, wrote:
Wow, such sarcastic and nasty responses to my expression of gratitude.
I found this page when I googled how to get off a stuck vacuum cleaner attachment.
I used the hairdryer trick and happily it worked, but I don't feel so grateful
after the nastiness expressed by the four responses. Sort yourselves out.


How are we supposed to know what you are talking about when you left out
important information from a 19 year old post? Good chance the guy you
replied to is long gone or even dead.
Had you mentioned the hair dryer trick the first time it would have made
sense and possibly helped others. CONTEXT. It is important.



Ed .. Yo ! Ed ! .. you're replying to someone
who is replying to a 19 year old post - bad enough -
.. but the post is about getting a vac attachment off !
.. the depths to whch we have sunk ..
.. and alas I'm hereby adding to the futility of it all.
Fie.
John T.


I wonder if he gets his wife off.

.... or himself?!

I use Google Groups and saw all the ancient parts, but I wasn't going
to wade through and read all of them to try to guess what the new poster
was replying to.


right GG is not the issue. We see all the old posts.

m

In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 25 Mar 2019 07:14:30 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:



I use Google Groups and saw all the ancient parts, but I wasn't going
to wade through and read all of them to try to guess what the new poster
was replying to.


right GG is not the issue. We see all the old posts.

m

And the OP takes none of the responsibility, and get this, says he
doesn't feel so grateful. Who was he grateful to in the first place,
whoever suggested the hair dryer, someone who did not dump on him, OR
usenet as a whole, when it was only 4 of us who had dumped on him?

On 3/25/19 9:14 AM, wrote:


I use Google Groups and saw all the ancient parts, but I wasn't going
to wade through and read all of them to try to guess what the new poster
was replying to.


right GG is not the issue. We see all the old posts.

m

I think you're responding to Trader 4. Normally I'd see
something about
makolber.....................wrote
Trader 4 wrote...................................
Then you would quote the relevant part of T4's post you're responding to
and write you're response. No need for a reader to wade through maybe
100 posts going back years and straying from one topic to the next.
I'm using Thunderbird newsreader on usenet with a MacBook Air.