The message
from Stan The Man contains these words in a thread about
hosepipe bans

All I ask is a compromise -- that someone pursuing an off-topic
discussion has the courtesy to start a new thread with an appropriate
subject, eg "OT: Naturism (was Hosepipe Ban)". This is the universally
adopted guideline for the rest of usenet and I can't see why it's such
an issue.

Aren't you part of the universe?

One can't help noticing that you failed to start a new thread with an
appropriate header for your netiquette discussion.

Janet.

In article , Janet Baraclough
wrote:

The message
from Stan The Man contains these words in a thread about
hosepipe bans

All I ask is a compromise -- that someone pursuing an off-topic
discussion has the courtesy to start a new thread with an appropriate
subject, eg "OT: Naturism (was Hosepipe Ban)". This is the universally
adopted guideline for the rest of usenet and I can't see why it's such
an issue.

Aren't you part of the universe?

One can't help noticing that you failed to start a new thread with an
appropriate header for your netiquette discussion.

Janet.

Indeed, mea culpa - but I was trying not to make the discussion
unnecessarily prominent since the people I was addressing had all
posted in this thread...

The message
from Stan The Man contains these words:

In article , Janet Baraclough
wrote:

The message
from Stan The Man contains these words in a thread about
hosepipe bans

All I ask is a compromise -- that someone pursuing an off-topic
discussion has the courtesy to start a new thread with an appropriate
subject, eg "OT: Naturism (was Hosepipe Ban)". This is the universally
adopted guideline for the rest of usenet and I can't see why it's such
an issue.

Aren't you part of the universe?

One can't help noticing that you failed to start a new thread with an
appropriate header for your netiquette discussion.

Janet.

Indeed, mea culpa - but I was trying not to make the discussion
unnecessarily prominent since the people I was addressing had all
posted in this thread...

Feeble. The comments you objected to, were also addressed to someone
who had already posted in the thread. When it came to someone else's
offtopic asides, you claimed they were inflicted on the majority.
Remember writing this? :

Quite a lot of threads in this newsgroup get taken miles off topic by a
certain group of people who presumably think that their banter is of
interest to the majority.

You can't have it both ways. You do not know if a majority/minority
reads anybody's offtopic posts, including your own. You also said

Some of these same individuals are very quick
to criticise others who put a foot wrong

Pot, kettle, black?

Some individuals have a special talent for putting their foot in their
mouth and tripping themselves up.

Janet.

In article , Janet Baraclough
wrote:

(snip)

Some individuals have a special talent for putting their foot in their
mouth and tripping themselves up.

Instead of behaving like a spoilt child who has been told off why don't
you just stop your snide little comments and behave like a responsible
adult, if that is what you believe you are?

This isn't a playground points scoring contest. If I put a foot wrong,
it makes no difference at all to the central point which is that none
of us should take threads off-topic without starting a new,
appropriately titled thread.

If you think that throwing accusations at me somehow absolves you of
improper usenet behaviour, I'm sorry to tell you that you are entirely
wrong. Stop whining, get over it and post properly.