On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:42:48 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
dhenriques@noware .net wrote in
t::

Your quote was incorrect as I have stated. You attritubed the entire
statement to me, which is incorrect.

Fortunately, that is not true.

Under your heading "Dudley Henriques said", you include the entire McNichol
quote, then my two word response "Forget it."

With all due respect, here is the follow-up article you, Dudley
Henriques, posted:

From: "Dudley Henriques" dhenriques@noware .net
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: CFI without commercial?
Message-ID: t
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 23:22:57 GMT

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
.net...

"Dudley Henriques" dhenriques@noware .net wrote in message
. net...

Might I suggest you try attaching something once in a while to
indicate
you mean humor. It's allowed in the response you
know......Usenet
protocol and all that :-)) See what I mean? Doesn't hurt a
bit!!


I don't use smilies. If you have to tell your audience when to
laugh your humor has missed the mark.

Forget it.

If one notes the attribution lines ('wrote in') and the nested indents
(''), it's quite clear, that you, Dudley Henriques, posted a two word
follow-up to McNicoll's two sentences, and that you included
McNicoll's two sentences in that follow-up article.

Please do not include what other people say leading up to a response, then
add the response under a single heading.

Above you, Dudley Henriques, accuses Montblack of what you in fact did
in your own follow-up article. Ironic. You included text you wrote,
McNicoll's response, and finally your two word response to that.

Such nested attributions are exceedingly ubiquitous in Usenet
follow-up articles. The included text provides a context for the
statement(s) made in the follow-up article(s).

This is a Usenet 101 no no,

Including attributed text in follow-up articles with nested indents is
not a 'no no.' It is a common, but perhaps cumbersome, and even
confusing mechanism for the Usenet naive, that provides context.

and I personally don't like what Steven McNichol says being attributed
to me at ANY time!.
Dudley Henriques

I feel your pain. :-) But, because that didn't happen, you should be
happy.

What Montblack did was omit the attribution line indicating that
McNicoll said the part behind the double indent marks (). However,
it is still quite clear to an experienced Usenet reader, that
Montblack did not attribute McNicoll's statement to you, Dudley
Henriques, by virtue of the nested double indent marks (). Despite
Montblack's omission of McNicoll's attribution line, Montblack's
attribution was correct in indicating that you, Dudley Henriques, had
included McNicoll's text in your article, and thus had 'said' what
McNicoll said by quoting him.

So I think the lesson here is to include the necessary _attribution_
-lines_ as well as the indent marks when including text from a
previous article.

(Please don't flame me for attempting to explain the precise nature of
the complaint and my deliberate use of antecedents to overcome pronoun
ambiguity.)