"Lynnette Fiddick" <mail.list@lynnettefiddick.com> wrote in message > The response I received to my previous email from one of the listers who > had > also posted to Jen, You are quite wrong. Aren't genealogists supposed to pay attention to details? I did not post to Jen. I responded to another poster who was not Jen and that other poster was responding to someone else who was also not Jen. has justified the view I expressed previously about > email, which is, I do not normally reply to an email that does not provide > the sender's name or general locality. I made an exception and was subject > to an unbelievable response from that person. Yes, indeed you did get a quite unbelievable response from me to your post and yes I was rude. Perhaps you could ask yourself why. In my post to which you responded, I made a comment. I didn't make any form of request. I didn't reply to Jen. You think others should be kind and helpful and so do I but there are limits. That is where foilbes come in. My post to which you responded merely mentioned that we all have foibles. Another of my foibles is that I really get irritated and cross when people don't bother to understand what it is they are replying to. I have made a decision to not sign posts, to not give a location and additonally, to mung my addy. I have valid reasons for that and family historians are THE one group of people who SHOULD have sufficient imagination and/or experience to think of some of the reasons why that may be so. Perhaps, even though I was only making a comment, you think you were being kind and helpful in telling me that I should sign, should give a location and that I should share because otherwise I'd get no help for something I hadn't asked for anyway. (again unsigned and equally as grumpy and rude as my last response to you because you aren't thinking)