[SC-Help] Re: More troubles...
a_none_mous_e at hotmail.com
Wed Apr 14 20:57:04 EDT 2004
"Scott C." <dsp4ever2002 at yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c5kr89$86j$1 at news.spamcop.net...
> "Mike Easter" <MikeE at ster.invalid> wrote in message
> news:c5kfis$q2o$1 at news.spamcop.net...
> > Scott C. wrote:
> > > You've lost me...
> > The problem with top posting is that it interferes with your ability to
> > read the same words you are discussing.
> > Which part of this is unclear? The initial gripe is about posting a
> > spam.
> > <snip>
> I guess what I really don't understand is why it was more important for
> you, and now Cat, to lecture me on newsgroup rules...and nobody responded
> about either of the two problems. Many of the groups I have posted to
> the years must have top posted, as I never heard of that rule.
> As for posting spam, I understand clearly the rules...and did not post a
> spam message here...I posted a weird response from SpamCop. If that is
> posting spam, I guess I am arrested...would have preferred some comments
> that was going on with the system.
I believe that there is a break in the communication between you and other
posters - your *first* post *was* a response from SC - but your *second*
post WAS spam with all the html coding being displayed. THAT is what should
have been posted in spam.
The reason for all the non-response was the second post with the spam and
your misconception about "top posting" (note that this is the "in line"
posting they were talking about.)
Maybe if you started over again with only a short snippet of the SC response
and the question - _maybe_you *will* get an answer.
A SpamCop user and forum reader,
> Think it's back to lurking...too many rules for me. ;-)
More information about the SpamCop-Help