when when what? Go play with yourself!
cuhulin

How bout that,Sports Fans!?
cuhulin

(OT) can also mean (OT On Topic) I posted something about shortwave
radios here just a short while ago.I think I hear your momy calling you
so your diaper needs changing.
cuhulin

Heyyyyy Asshole,you ever hear the cry of the DOO DOO BIRD before?
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh ****ttttttt!!!!!!!!
cuhulin

"Al Arduengo" wrote in message
news

Replys should stay within the thread from which they originated.

You must be new to Usenet. When a thread goes off on such a tangent that it
has nothing to do with the original post, the polite thing to do is rename
the thread...preferably with a Was: in front of the old name. That way
people who want to follow the original, on-topic discussion can do so
without wading through all of the other, unrelated crap. Let's say we're
discussing images, and cuhulin chimes in that his dog Blueberry
www.cattledog.com just farted in his open mouth. That leads off to a thread
of discussion that has nothing to do with images, like why is his open mouth
so close to Blueberry's ass in the first place? Anyone who wants to follow
the images conversation has to wade through the farting cattledog replies.
Not good.

So then someone renames the thread "Cuhulin sucks dog farts Was: images".

That's good. See, when the replies aren't to the original thread, they don't
belong in the thread they originated in.

On 2005-02-19, Honus wrote:

"Al Arduengo" wrote in message
news

Replys should stay within the thread from which they originated.

You must be new to Usenet. When a thread goes off on such a tangent that it
has nothing to do with the original post, the polite thing to do is rename
the thread...preferably with a Was: in front of the old name. That way
people who want to follow the original, on-topic discussion can do so
without wading through all of the other, unrelated crap. Let's say we're
discussing images, and cuhulin chimes in that his dog Blueberry
www.cattledog.com just farted in his open mouth. That leads off to a thread
of discussion that has nothing to do with images, like why is his open mouth
so close to Blueberry's ass in the first place? Anyone who wants to follow
the images conversation has to wade through the farting cattledog replies.
Not good.

So then someone renames the thread "Cuhulin sucks dog farts Was: images".

That's good. See, when the replies aren't to the original thread, they don't
belong in the thread they originated in.



Actually I am not new to usenet. And I made the invalid assumption that those
reading would know to only create a new thread when the actual subject of the
discussion changed. Most of the violaters here start a new thread everytime
they reply to a post. *That* is what I am complaining about.

Thanks.

--
~/.signature

I guess I am one of the bad guys, I'm sorry that I started a new tread but I
"just can't help myself".

Any help you could give me as to where I may be able to get help would
be appreciated

Sincerely

Burr



"Al Arduengo" wrote in message
...
On 2005-02-19, Honus wrote:

"Al Arduengo" wrote in message
news

Replys should stay within the thread from which they originated.

You must be new to Usenet. When a thread goes off on such a tangent that
it
has nothing to do with the original post, the polite thing to do is
rename
the thread...preferably with a Was: in front of the old name. That way
people who want to follow the original, on-topic discussion can do so
without wading through all of the other, unrelated crap. Let's say we're
discussing images, and cuhulin chimes in that his dog Blueberry
www.cattledog.com just farted in his open mouth. That leads off to a
thread
of discussion that has nothing to do with images, like why is his open
mouth
so close to Blueberry's ass in the first place? Anyone who wants to
follow
the images conversation has to wade through the farting cattledog
replies.
Not good.

So then someone renames the thread "Cuhulin sucks dog farts Was: images".

That's good. See, when the replies aren't to the original thread, they
don't
belong in the thread they originated in.



Actually I am not new to usenet. And I made the invalid assumption that
those
reading would know to only create a new thread when the actual subject of
the
discussion changed. Most of the violaters here start a new thread
everytime
they reply to a post. *That* is what I am complaining about.

Thanks.

--
~/.signature

Now I Know! you are a mental case!
cuhulin

wrote in message
...
Now I Know! you are a mental case!

At least I know enough to keep my face away from my dog's ass. Or were you
simply trying to find a way of improving the smell of your breath?

"Al Arduengo" wrote in message
news
Replys should stay within the thread from which they originated.

Thanks all.
--
~/.signature


Thank you Al,
I'm so glad you took the time to share this with me.

TIA, Cya

Burr