The Guardian on 5USA
Stephen Wolstenholme
Guardian. I set my recorder to record the series. Every episode of the
series terminates a few minutes too early. No other recorded programs
show this problem so I must assume that it's a fault with 5USA
Anyone else see this problem?
Steve
--
Neural network applications, help and support.
Neural Network Software. www.npsl1.com
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. www.justnn.com
Brian Gaff
Remember part way through showing the series Numbers in the same time slot,
the audio description suddenly stopped being put out. this coincided with
their horrible thing on the lives of celebs in the uS.
When i enquired it seems than t their edit suites where they hack shows to
fit loses the AD when they edit them. You could not invent this stuff could
you?
Bunch of amateurs the lot of em!
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Stephen Wolstenholme" <st...@npsl1.com> wrote in message
news:acfs47tb5otpv5ldt...@4ax.com...
Stephen Wolstenholme
<Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Yes, they shorten it to shove in crap.
> Remember part way through showing the series Numbers in the same time slot,
>the audio description suddenly stopped being put out. this coincided with
>their horrible thing on the lives of celebs in the uS.
> When i enquired it seems than t their edit suites where they hack shows to
>fit loses the AD when they edit them. You could not invent this stuff could
>you?
>
>Bunch of amateurs the lot of em!
>Brian
That convinces me not to watch channel five again. Such amateurism is
intolerable.
Brian Gaff
they are even bothering to get audio description done on the new csi shows.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Stephen Wolstenholme" <st...@npsl1.com> wrote in message
news:esls471ns0r6v4brp...@4ax.com...
J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
>Brian
>
>--
Brian: if you really must top-post, *PLEASE* stop using a proper .sig
separator line! (More text further down.)
[]
>"Stephen Wolstenholme" <st...@npsl1.com> wrote in message
>news:acfs47tb5otpv5ldt...@4ax.com...
>>I don't record many programs on 5USA but one I wanted to watch is The
>> Guardian. I set my recorder to record the series. Every episode of the
>> series terminates a few minutes too early. No other recorded programs
>> show this problem so I must assume that it's a fault with 5USA
[]
Brian: though your bile against the operators of 5 and its stable may
well be justified, you've let the red mist stop you reading what Stephen
said: his _recordings_ are stopping _early_. Them "shortening it to
shove in crap" would not have this effect: if anything, they'd cause the
recording to have a bit of "crap" tacked on the end.
Stephen: I'm sorry, I have no answer; I just thought I'd restate your
question in case anyone who does know is still reading.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
... "Peter and out." ... "Kevin and out." (Link episode)
Stephen Wolstenholme
<G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <j2lglv$2d2$1...@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff
><Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>>Yes, they shorten it to shove in crap.
>[]
>>Brian
>>
>>--
>
>Brian: if you really must top-post, *PLEASE* stop using a proper .sig
>separator line! (More text further down.)
>[]
>>"Stephen Wolstenholme" <st...@npsl1.com> wrote in message
>>news:acfs47tb5otpv5ldt...@4ax.com...
>>>I don't record many programs on 5USA but one I wanted to watch is The
>>> Guardian. I set my recorder to record the series. Every episode of the
>>> series terminates a few minutes too early. No other recorded programs
>>> show this problem so I must assume that it's a fault with 5USA
>[]
>Brian: though your bile against the operators of 5 and its stable may
>well be justified, you've let the red mist stop you reading what Stephen
>said: his _recordings_ are stopping _early_. Them "shortening it to
>shove in crap" would not have this effect: if anything, they'd cause the
>recording to have a bit of "crap" tacked on the end.
>
>Stephen: I'm sorry, I have no answer; I just thought I'd restate your
>question in case anyone who does know is still reading.
I don't time the recording I leave it up to the program broadcast. It
is 5USA that sends the signal to stop recording so it's their fault.
Brian Gaff
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Muqz2NcZ...@soft255.demon.co.uk...
J. P. Gilliver (John)
<Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>Pedant.
There is a good technical reason for my request. If you're going to
dismiss such requests with single-word abuse, perhaps you should think
twice before posting in a "tech" newsgroup.
Happiness isn't happiness without a violin-playing goat. [Anna Scott (Julia
Roberts) in "Notting Hill" (1999)]
Paul Cummins
G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk (J. P. Gilliver (John)) wrote:
> There is a good technical reason for my request. If you're going to
> dismiss such requests with single-word abuse, perhaps you should
> think twice before posting in a "tech" newsgroup.
what He Said.
I am more than happy to make reasonable adjustment for a
differently-abled newsfroup participant, but that doesn't mean having to
unhide .sig files just to be able to read the posting being quoted for
context.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Jerry
: In message <j2p30l$jm4$1...@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff
: <Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
: >Pedant.
:
: There is a good technical reason for my request. If you're
going to
: dismiss such requests with single-word abuse, perhaps you
should think
: twice before posting in a "tech" newsgroup.
No John, in this instance *your* should remember that Brian is a
blind user (perhaps you should read his sig line rather than just
snipe about it...), I can be and have been as pedantic as you are
about top-posters but in Brain's case I make a 110 percent
exception because of his sight problems, if for no other reason
than his speech to/from text software that he uses IIRC might not
be able place the sig line in any other place - also, unlike the
many sycophantic sig lines, yours included, Brain actually does
need to use a sig line for non self-congratulatory reasons.
Get off his back FFS.
--
Regards, Jerry.
Jerry
"Paul Cummins" <uset...@stedtelephone.invalid> wrote in message
news:memo.2011082...@paul.local.domain...
<snip>
: I am more than happy to make reasonable adjustment for a
: differently-abled newsfroup participant, but that doesn't mean
having to
: unhide .sig files just to be able to read the posting being
quoted for
: context.
:
The above says *far* more about you Paul than it does Brain.
What does it take to 'unhide' such sig-lines, a two finger
key-stroke, poor diddums, if you still want to rant about this
then try doing so whilst wearing either frosted goggles or a
blind-fold...
-sig-separator would normally go here-
"You obviously couldn't get a clue if you rolled in
clue musk and performed the clue mating dance
in the middle of a field full of horny clues at the
height of the clue mating season!"
Brian Gaff
started to use the sig line I use, I'd be prepared to say i cocked it up,
but its been the same for years, and nobody, I mean nobody has rased any
technical issues over it. It could be that some kind of older news client
sees something in the line that it interprets in some odd way. I have no
real idea.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Jerry" <mapson...@btinternet.INVALID> wrote in message
news:j2qcaa$db8$2...@dont-email.me...
Paul Cummins
(Jerry) wrote:
> if you still want to rant about this
> then try doing so whilst wearing either frosted goggles or a
> blind-fold...
>
Is this where I point out that I AM functionally blind in one eye?
Dave Plowman (News)
Brian Gaff <Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> I have a flame retardant suit actually. If, for example, i had only just
> started to use the sig line I use, I'd be prepared to say i cocked it
> up, but its been the same for years, and nobody, I mean nobody has
> rased any technical issues over it. It could be that some kind of older
> news client sees something in the line that it interprets in some odd
> way. I have no real idea.
Are you saying it is not possible to configure your system to remove a
sig, and do a reply just to the body of the message? As pretty well all
are capable of doing?
Or are you just too stubborn to do so? ;-)
--
*With her marriage she got a new name and a dress.*
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Paul Ratcliffe
wrote:
> I have a flame retardant suit actually. If, for example, i had only just
> started to use the sig line I use, I'd be prepared to say i cocked it up,
> but its been the same for years, and nobody, I mean nobody has rased any
> technical issues over it.
Maybe they can't be bothered with you. I'm on the verge of kill-filing
you.
> It could be that some kind of older news client
> sees something in the line that it interprets in some odd way. I have no
> real idea.
Why do you think old news clients are bad? As if old somehow means broken?
The standards have been around for years and software doesn't go off.
It's nothing to do with anyone else's client. IT'S YOURS that is the
problem. Don't go around blaming anyone else for your inability to post
the sig. at the bottom rather than between your reply and the quoted
material.
You just sound like you're another arrogant twat with a chip....
Stephen Wolstenholme
I think Brian is probably using a text to speech reader because he is
blind. Positioning his replies with a spoken message could be quite
difficult! I don't have any problem with his sig line using Agent and
even if it was a problem it only needs on key press to toggle quotes
on and off.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
>In article <j2qjni$ib5$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Brian Gaff <Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> I have a flame retardant suit actually. If, for example, i had only just
>> started to use the sig line I use, I'd be prepared to say i cocked it
>> up, but its been the same for years, and nobody, I mean nobody has
>> rased any technical issues over it. It could be that some kind of older
>> news client sees something in the line that it interprets in some odd
>> way. I have no real idea.
>
>Are you saying it is not possible to configure your system to remove a
>sig, and do a reply just to the body of the message? As pretty well all
>are capable of doing?
>
>Or are you just too stubborn to do so? ;-)
>
for you to do other than top-post (though I do have two blind friends -
going to visit them on Saturday, in fact). It's just that your use of a
proper signature separator - the dash-dash-space line - after what
you've written, but before the text you're quoting, makes all of that
text appear to be part of your signature: my software, which is
compliant with the relevant standards, strips off anything below a
signature separator line, on the perfectly reasonable basis that most
people don't need their signature quoted back at them. ..
. If you could just even leave off the space, so that the separator line
was just two dashes, all would be hunky dory, or at least closer to it.
Incidentally, I have bi-monocular vision myself: nothing like as
inconvenient, I know, though (as I've recently discovered to my cost on
a course at work) the lack of 3D vision makes close work very difficult.
(On the other hand I'll never feel any urge to buy a 3D TV ...)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
They say no one rehearses any more, and I suppose if your output is all scenery
and sick cats you don't need to. - Victoria Wood, Radio Times, 1998
Jerry
"Paul Cummins" <uset...@stedtelephone.invalid> wrote in message
: In article <j2qcaa$db8$3...@dont-email.me>,
: (Jerry) wrote:
:
: > if you still want to rant about this
: > then try doing so whilst wearing either frosted goggles or a
: > blind-fold...
: >
:
:
Not unless you are functionally blind in both eyes, there is a
big difference between the two.
--
Regards, Jerry.
Jerry
"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5206348...@davenoise.co.uk...
: In article <j2qjni$ib5$1...@dont-email.me>,
: Brian Gaff <Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
: > I have a flame retardant suit actually. If, for example, i
had only just
: > started to use the sig line I use, I'd be prepared to say i
cocked it
: > up, but its been the same for years, and nobody, I mean
nobody has
: > rased any technical issues over it. It could be that some
kind of older
: > news client sees something in the line that it interprets in
some odd
: > way. I have no real idea.
:
: Are you saying it is not possible to configure your system to
remove a
: sig, and do a reply just to the body of the message? As pretty
well all
: are capable of doing?
But as I pointed out, Brian is the one person posting to this
thread who actually needs to use a sig line!
:
: Or are you just too stubborn to do so? ;-)
:
Or perhaps he just can't see to make such configuration changes,
I know someone who hasn't totally lost their sight but has to
either get friends, family or (for really serious problems) the
RNIB to sort out any such computer problems.
--
Regards, Jerry.
Jerry
<snip claptrap "I can't be bothed to 'drive' _my_ computer"
excusses>
John, do you get someone to wipe your arse for you?...
Clue, most people do not have a problem as they don't set their
newsreaders to strip out sig lines until composting a reply for
the simple reason that the sig line often contains information
about the poster relevant to a reply either via the group or by
email.
--
Regards, Jerry.
Jerry
"Bob Latham" <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:520651...@sick-of-spam.invalid...
: [ in reply to Brian Gaff ]
<snip the 'excusses'>
:
: I will also tell you that because your posts are more difficult
to read I
: usually don't bother to read them at all if I'm honest I just
hit delete.
:
They are not difficult to read, they are in standard English,
what you really meant by your diatribe (most snipped) is that you
simply just can't be bothered... 'nough said. :~(
--
Dave Plowman (News)
Jerry <mapson...@btinternet.INVALID> wrote:
> They are not difficult to read, they are in standard English,
> what you really meant by your diatribe (most snipped) is that you
> simply just can't be bothered... 'nough said. :~(
They are *more* difficult to read here because everything below a sig
separator is in one colour regardless of quotation marks.
Perhaps Brian intends punishing those with sight. ;-)
--
*You're never too old to learn something stupid.
Jerry
"Bob Latham" <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message
: In article <j2rdm6$dlp$2...@dont-email.me>,
: Jerry <mapson...@btinternet.INVALID> wrote:
:
: > "Bob Latham" <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message
: > news:520651...@sick-of-spam.invalid...
:
: > : [ in reply to Brian Gaff ]
:
: > <snip the 'excusses'>
: > :
: > : I will also tell you that because your posts are more
difficult
: > to read I
: > : usually don't bother to read them at all if I'm honest I
just
: > hit delete.
: > :
:
: > They are not difficult to read, they are in standard English,
: > what you really meant by your diatribe (most snipped) is that
you
: > simply just can't be bothered... 'nough said. :~(
: There is an *optional* rfc code which if used says one thing
and one thing
: alone and that is: " the following is NOT part of the text
document, it is
: my signature, ignore, and cut it as you will."
<snip>
...and it's optional if the user sets their newsreader to strip
out such content, *you* have a problem then YOU sort it your end,
but if you want to get all pedantic about things there is also a
RFC about showing your REAL return email - deal with your spam
either on your ISPs mail server or more preferably on your own
mail-server or computer, stop expecting others servers to bounce
your spam.
: And you say I haven't clue. Interesting!
Funny that, you have no problem reading sig lines when *you* want
to, 'nough said...
:
: I'll refrain from the personal insults, it's always
: <snipped>
Indeen, but you do something even worse, you bully people who
have a disability, and then hide behind X-No-Archive: yes. 'nough
said...
: a weak argument.
Indeed your bullying, whilst acting as a net-nanny, is a weak
argument, go put your own house in order before lecturing others,
if you feel the need to reply further then you better display
your full ISP/traceable TLD domain return email address otherwise
you will just prove that you are all mouth and no brain, nothing
but yet another worthless net-bully shouting out "Do as I say,
not what I do".
If *you*, Bob, want to start brandishing RFC's around then put
your own house in order first, otherwise you are just showing
yourself up to be a hypocrite at best.
Paul Cummins
(Jerry) wrote:
> : Is this where I point out that I AM blind in one eye?
>
> Not unless you are functionally blind in both eyes, there is a
> big difference between the two.
Dishonest editing there, Jerry...
Jerry
"Paul Cummins" <uset...@stedtelephone.invalid> wrote in message
news:memo.2011082...@postmaster.local.domain...
: (Jerry) wrote:
:
:
: > : Is this where I point out that I AM blind in one eye?
: >
: > Not unless you are functionally blind in both eyes, there is
a
: > big difference between the two.
:
: Dishonest editing there, Jerry...
Not at all, it was a direct quote of what you asked (and answer),
if you don't like the question that *you* asked then that is your
problems, no one else's, least of all mine...
Dave Liquorice
> In article <j2rdm6$dlp$2...@dont-email.me>,
> Jerry <mapson...@btinternet.INVALID> wrote:
> > They are not difficult to read, they are in standard English,
> > what you really meant by your diatribe (most snipped) is that you
> > simply just can't be bothered... 'nough said. :~(
>
> They are *more* difficult to read here because everything below a sig
> separator is in one colour regardless of quotation marks.
They aren't here maybe you ought to use a client that doesn't fupp
about adding eye candy pretty colours to *plain text*.
--
Cheers
Dave.
Paul Cummins
(Jerry) wrote:
> Not at all, it was a direct quote of what you asked (and answer),
> if you don't like the question that *you* asked then that is your
> problems, no one else's, least of all mine...
No, you deliberately cut a word out, then used the same word you had cut
in your reply, to try to imply something other than what I said.
But that's fine - welcome to my Killfile, where you can discuss life with
Brian.
Dave Plowman (News)
Dave Liquorice <allsortsn...@howhill.co.uk> wrote:
> > They are *more* difficult to read here because everything below a sig
> > separator is in one colour regardless of quotation marks.
> They aren't here maybe you ought to use a client that doesn't fupp
> about adding eye candy pretty colours to *plain text*.
It's still plain text. The colours simply make it easier to follow. In
rather the same way as that script you may follow has the name at the
beginning of each speech.
It would be a very crappy newsreader that doesn't give you the option to
enhance the identification of who wrote what with colours.
--
*A hangover is the wrath of grapes.
Jerry
"Paul Cummins" <uset...@stedtelephone.invalid> wrote in message
news:memo.2011082...@postmaster.local.domain...
: (Jerry) wrote:
:
: > Not at all, it was a direct quote of what you asked (and
answer),
: > if you don't like the question that *you* asked then that is
your
: > problems, no one else's, least of all mine...
:
: No, you deliberately cut a word out, then used the same word
you had cut
: in your reply, to try to imply something other than what I
said.
Your trolling point being what, if anything I made you look less
of the idiot you so obviously are, only an troll would compare a
lazy eye with a totally blind one...
:
: But that's fine - welcome to my Killfile,
A sure sign that you know you have lost the plot.
--
Jerry - on an different NNTP server...
Andr� Coutanche
--
Jerry - on an different NNTP server...
Does that mean I have to kill-file you again, or will you disappear again
automatically soon?
Andr� Coutanche
Jerry
"Bob Latham" <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message
: In article <j2rphv$oc$1...@dont-email.me>,
: Jerry <mapson...@btinternet.INVALID> wrote:
:
:
: > ...and it's optional if the user sets their newsreader to
strip
: > out such content,
:
: It strips it out to conform to the RFCs for the return only.
There is no
So where is YOUR problem, other that utter laziness?...
: config option on this in my software. Don't bother to tell me
to change
: the software it is NOT at fault.
Then don't expect others to do something you admit that YOU are
not prepared to do yourself...
:
: > *you* have a problem then YOU sort it your end,
:
: Don't let facts get in the way of your argument will you.
You are either talking about yourself or have not actually
grasped the argument, how YOU chose to read messages on your
computer and what software YOU choose to use is YOUR problem, no
one else's.
:
: > but if you want to get all pedantic about things there is
also a
: > RFC about showing your REAL return email - deal with your
spam
: > either on your ISPs mail server or more preferably on your
own
: > mail-server or computer, stop expecting others servers to
bounce
: > your spam.
:
: And what exactly has this to do with email?
Because you seem to love quoting RFC's, I was merely pointing out
that you are not conforming to at least one RFC yourself, if you
want to preach to others about conforming to RFC's you need top
be lily-white first otherwise all you come over as is yet another
worthless troll using the well tries and failed "Do as I say, not
as I do" argument.
:
: > : And you say I haven't clue. Interesting!
:
: > Funny that, you have no problem reading sig lines when *you*
want
: > to, 'nough said...
:
: I never came close to saying I couldn't read signatures. Try
'reading' and
: thinking and understanding before you rant.
So you admit to jumping on the bandwagon then, like so many
net-nannies do, without first actually grasping what the issues
are, otherwise you would know that it has everything to do with
content that becomes a part of Brain's signature due to his
top-posting. If you must troll then at least do keep up!
:
: > :
: > : I'll refrain from the personal insults, it's always
: > : <snipped>
:
: > Indeen, but you do something even worse, you bully people who
: > have a disability, and then hide behind X-No-Archive: yes.
'nough
: > said...
:
: Desperate, so desperate. You needed to trawl through the post
header to
: find something you thought you could attack. Laughable, if it
wasn't so
: sad.
No defence other than more net-bullying and abuse, says far more
about YOU than me, as for noticing your X-No-Archive header,
actually I went looking to see if you used a Follow-up email
address - seeing how you expect others to comply with all
RFC's... And yes, the use of X-No-Archive: yes headers would be
laughable, if it wasn't so sad as not all servers honour them,
never mind that the following message more often than not quotes
some or all of the previous message.
:
: > : a weak argument.
:
: > Indeed your bullying, whilst acting as a net-nanny, is a weak
: > argument, go put your own house in order before lecturing
others,
: > if you feel the need to reply further then you better display
: > your full ISP/traceable TLD domain return email address
otherwise
: > you will just prove that you are all mouth and no brain,
nothing
: > but yet another worthless net-bully shouting out "Do as I
say,
: > not what I do".
:
: Just desperate, this has nothing to do with email.
If you expect others to comply with RFC's then you need to do
like wise...
:
: > If *you*, Bob, want to start brandishing RFC's around then
put
: > your own house in order first, otherwise you are just showing
: > yourself up to be a hypocrite at best.
:
: Utter rubbish. How desperate do you have to be to make such a
post.
:
: I'm sorry I can't be bothered to argue with you any further,
<snip>
A sure sign that you know you have lost the plot, as usual...
Jerry
: In article
: Dave Liquorice <allsortsn...@howhill.co.uk> wrote:
: > > They are *more* difficult to read here because everything
below a sig
: > > separator is in one colour regardless of quotation marks.
:
: > They aren't here maybe you ought to use a client that doesn't
fupp
: > about adding eye candy pretty colours to *plain text*.
:
: It's still plain text. The colours simply make it easier to
follow.
That is what the indentations are for though, any colour coding
is just eye candy. :~)
:
: It would be a very crappy newsreader that doesn't give you the
option to
: enhance the identification of who wrote what with colours.
:
Tell that to someone who is colour blind, or indeed to
text-<>-speech newsreader software...
Dave Plowman (News)
Jerry <mapson...@btinternet.INVALID> wrote:
> : It would be a very crappy newsreader that doesn't give you the
> option to
> : enhance the identification of who wrote what with colours.
> :
> Tell that to someone who is colour blind, or indeed to
> text-<>-speech newsreader software...
Which part of 'option' defeats you?
--
*Why do we say something is out of whack? What is a whack? *
Jerry
: In article <j2t75f$ccb$2...@dont-email.me>,
: Jerry <mapson...@btinternet.INVALID> wrote:
: > : It would be a very crappy newsreader that doesn't give you
the
: > option to
: > : enhance the identification of who wrote what with colours.
: > :
:
: > Tell that to someone who is colour blind, or indeed to
: > text-<>-speech newsreader software...
:
: Which part of 'option' defeats you?
Non of it, but I must ask what part of 'crappy' defeats you when
not everyone either needs or wants coloured eye-candy, the lack
of such eye-candy doesn't make the software crap - just
different.
--
Regards, Jerry.
anon
Bob S
Dave Plowman (News)
Jerry <mapson...@btinternet.INVALID> wrote:
Perhaps you could look up 'option' before simply posting more rubbish.
--
*I don't work here. I'm a consultant
Jerry
<snip>
:
: Perhaps you could look up 'option' before simply posting more
rubbish.
:
Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word "Opinion"...
--
Regards, Jerry.
Jerry
"anon" <an...@anon.com> wrote in message
news:2cedndeYhpBi28_T...@brightview.co.uk...
: Can someone please explain what all this has to do with the
original post?
:
Nothing, it's called "Thread drift", welcome to Usenet!...
Paul Ratcliffe
<acout...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Jerry wrote:
>
> --
> Jerry - on an different NNTP server...
>
> Does that mean I have to kill-file you again, or will you disappear again
> automatically soon?
Yes, it got past mine too.
I think I'm just going to kill-file anything that is "From:" "Jerry".
It can't resist posting its name.
Talking of options, the Jerry creature obviously didn't have the brain
option selected in the factory. It's sad that it's made it this far
really. You'd have thought nature might have rejected it before now.
Jerry
"Paul Ratcliffe" <ab...@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote in
message news:slrnj54m98...@news.pr.network...
[ 99 percent of the usual trolling from Mr Ratclife snipped ]
: It can't resist posting its name.
The pot trying to call the kettle black again...
Newshound
>
+1
Jerry
"Newshound" <news...@fairadsl.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9bl545...@mid.individual.net...
: On 22/08/2011 10:18, André Coutanche wrote:
: > Jerry wrote:
: > <snipped>
: >
: > Does that mean I have to kill-file you again, or will you
: > automatically soon?
: >
: > André Coutanche
: >
: +1
Says far more about these over pompous no-bodies than it ever
will about me, the fact that they feel it necessary to tell the
world about their mass debating skills...