news.software.readers

Magus wrote:
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> MartinS wrote:
>>> Blinky the Shark < @ > wrote:
>>>> XS11E wrote:
>>>>> Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>>> XS11E wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> I'm one who did because of your asking for an email reply. If
>>>>>>> you don't know, that's a major violation of usenet etiquitte.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /~jkorpela/usenet/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The main reason is there are always lurkers and others who may
>>>>>>> benefit from the answer(s) to your question and if it's emailed
>>>>>>> they can't see it, a much less popular reason is that if the reply
>>>>>>> isn't posted any mistakes in the reply can't be corrected.
>>>>>> Another - and for me the most important - reason is that it wastes the
>>>>>> time of all-but-one of the respondents.
>>>>> Next time anyone asks for an email response let's all go to email and
>>>>> figure out 5 or more responses and email them to the OP but..... let's
>>>>> make all of those 5 or more responses incorrect!
>>>> Make that a Google Groper, and I'm in. Well, except for the part that I
>>>> won't see it. But I'm in in spirit. ;)
>>> Doesn't the spirit get diluted underwater?
>>
>> Sure, but these highly evololved and supersensitive gills make up for
>> the dilution quite [hic] nicely.
>>
>
> Um... I'm not sure, and maybe it's better left unmentioned, but perhaps
> I should apologize for peeing over the side of the boat the last time I
> went salt-water fishing?
>
> There /was/ a high alcohol content in the copious quantities of the
> referenced fluid if that makes any difference...
>
> Maybe some things are better left unknown...

Which ocean?

--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project -