Don Moody wrote: > "John H" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected] > >>Hugh, >> >>It is impossible to use news:alt.test to make a test on an other >>specific group, which is my trouble. >>I and many others have been trying for 6 days to get them to accept >>that anything is wrong. >>Do you think I start backwards in ascertaing something isnt working. >>They claim they worked we claimned and proved otherwiseup till now. >> >>Since when were you elected moderator of this unmoderated group. >>Why do I have to put any message post in the "H.Watkins format" just >>because you declare it . >>Put yor brain into gear before you motor mouth off. >> >>Ive been arguing enough this week in "Ether land" with idiots who >>dont understand newsgroups, >>without out having to put up with your uncalled for inane comments. >> >>John H > > > > What about you, and others ,like you, actually reading the FAQ which > have been around for years? They - not Hugh or me - specifically say > that test posts should not be made to newsgroups. You are supposed to > use groups specifically set up for test posts if you want to send a > test post. If you've got anything genealogical to raise, raise it. The > mere appearance, or not, is a test as effective as a test post. If a > real post doesn't get through, complain loudly to your ISP and don't > bother this or any other subject newsgroup with your own stupidity. > Nobody on this newsgroup can do anything about it anyway. > > If it is the server making the cock up, it's up to your ISP (if > different) to lean on them. So again, hammer your ISP. > > I'll make plain that Hugh and I have differed in the past, and will no > doubt do so again. We have spoken on the phone occasionally but never > met. The latter being a mite difficult when he is in Denmark and I'm > in a wheelchair in Devon. So we are not ganging up on you. We're both > as old hands telling you what the rules say and where they are. It's > not a matter of a Hugh format or a Don format. It's a Usenet-wide set > of rules and they exist for sound reasons, which evidently you don't > appreciate. > > Indeed, from your reply to Hugh, I doubt if you even understand that > the Net wouldn't last a microsecond if everybody did what they damn > well pleased. The chaos would be unmanageable. The thing works by > having a set of rules and sticking to them. > > So that leaves you with one logical course of action if you don't want > to abide by the rules of the whole Net. Get off it. Forever. > Communicate by drawing pictures in sand, or whatever else suits your > anarchic state. Nobody is stopping you carrying your peculiar logical > approach to its logical conclusion. > > Don > > > But see, Don, you don't get it. Now he has a whole spate of postings from this group, irate in nature, which he can pass on to his ISP and say "See? I told you so." So it's all moot. Just go have a cup of tea and chill.

"katy" <[email protected]> wrote in message > But see, Don, you don't get it. Now he has a whole spate of postings from > this group, irate in nature, which he can pass on to his ISP and say "See? > I told you so." If the OP saw even one response then his problem is obviously solved (but there are few things more hair tearing than the failure of an ISP to deliver).