Trial by newspaper

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
On 12/14/2005 07:55, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Andrew;
No one knows which post you are answering if you don't reference in some
way.
In this case, you're either nailing me with this, or the initial post.
Dudley Henriques

Andrew was responding to Paul, which is clearly visible when viewing
the thread. If you aren't using a news reader which supports viewing
threads, perhaps you should switch. There are lots of free ones that
do a fine job.

If you have the option enabled to not see already read messages then there
is no thread to follow.

On 12/14/2005 14:54, Tom Conner wrote:

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
On 12/14/2005 07:55, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Andrew;
No one knows which post you are answering if you don't reference in some
way.
In this case, you're either nailing me with this, or the initial post.
Dudley Henriques

Andrew was responding to Paul, which is clearly visible when viewing
the thread. If you aren't using a news reader which supports viewing
threads, perhaps you should switch. There are lots of free ones that
do a fine job.

If you have the option enabled to not see already read messages then there
is no thread to follow.



The news reader I used allows me to see each thread which includes
unread messages. It excludes threads that have no unread messages.
This cuts way down on the clutter but still allows me to see the
entire thread.

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

Mark Hansen wrote:

On 12/14/2005 07:55, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Andrew;
No one knows which post you are answering if you don't reference in
some way.
In this case, you're either nailing me with this, or the initial post.
Dudley Henriques


Andrew was responding to Paul, which is clearly visible when viewing
the thread. If you aren't using a news reader which supports viewing
threads, perhaps you should switch. There are lots of free ones that
do a fine job.

I have a thread capable newsreader and it is still much preferred to
quote a sufficient portion of the thread to which you are replying to
let the reader know the context. I read from message to message and
typically the message window is covering the window that shows the
thread structure.

Dudley's advice is right on here.

Matt

Mark Hansen wrote:

On 12/14/2005 07:55, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Andrew;
No one knows which post you are answering if you don't reference in
some way.
In this case, you're either nailing me with this, or the initial post.
Dudley Henriques


Andrew was responding to Paul, which is clearly visible when viewing
the thread.

I only have displayed unread posts so if I read the original post it may
well be his post is first next time I check the news.

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 07:59:05 -0800, Mark Hansen
wrote:

On 12/14/2005 07:55, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Andrew;
No one knows which post you are answering if you don't reference in some
way.
In this case, you're either nailing me with this, or the initial post.
Dudley Henriques

Andrew was responding to Paul, which is clearly visible when viewing
the thread. If you aren't using a news reader which supports viewing
threads, perhaps you should switch. There are lots of free ones that
do a fine job.

How patronizing! My newsreader supports threads, and this post does not
tell anyone what article was being replied to. Only by keeping the entire
thread "alive" in your newsreader might you be able to infer this. Most
people delete articles after reading them.

So, please do not be so quick to provide a snippy reply. It's just plain
rude!




"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
ups.com...

Try and explain that to the parents of the boy who got killed.




--
Jay.
(remove dashes for legal email address)

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:48:04 -0500, Jay Somerset
wrote in
::

this post does not tell anyone what article was being replied to.

All Usenet articles contain a 'References:' header. Within it you
will find the 'Message-ID:' of the messages to which it is a reply as
well as those further up the message thread.

Dudley

I was responding to the original post by Paul. I am sorry if it came
off as 'nailing' anyone. I totally agree with your sentiments about
lawyers trying to turn tragedy into income. However, the victim in
question was not an airline passenger or even a pedestrian at the
airport property. I did not suggest that the victims parents should sue
SWA. However, for their peace of mind, they do deserve an answer as to
why this freak accident happened.

Dudley, they will get an answer when the NTSB releases the
report. Until then, the discussion here is just to get
pilots of all types, thinking about what and how to avoid it
happening again before the NTSB releases a and the FAA and
airline amend their regulations and procedures [that will
take years longer].

On the subject of your posts, you can set your newsreader to
include the message you're replying to, in Outlook Express
on the Send tab (Tools/Options) Include Message in Reply...


You can edit this, but still include enough useful info,
such as name and context of the message...


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm



"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
oups.com...
| Dudley
|
| I was responding to the original post by Paul. I am sorry
if it came
| off as 'nailing' anyone. I totally agree with your
sentiments about
| lawyers trying to turn tragedy into income. However, the
victim in
| question was not an airline passenger or even a pedestrian
at the
| airport property. I did not suggest that the victims
parents should sue
| SWA. However, for their peace of mind, they do deserve an
answer as to
| why this freak accident happened.
|

I am using google groups to post, and unless I am missing something it
does not seem to allow me the option of including the previous post
unless I manually cut and paste.

However, for their peace of mind, they do deserve an answer as to
why this freak accident happened.

I don't know that it was a "freak" accident. I think the pilots should have
saw this coming a 100 miles away. Tailwind, snow and ice covered runway,
short runway, low visibility, large fast aircraft, no over run with a
densely developed and populated area immediately after the airport barrier
fence. If the reverse thrusters or spoilers didn't work that only put the
icing on the cake that was already baked.

I wonder what the exact conditions were at the time and what are the FAA
minimums for that runway and what the company's policy was with the
situations they faced. That will determine your lawsuits.

Kobra