 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / British English / April 2004help needed
Hello! I am looking for someone who can help me a little with my homepage which is written in English. A Native English speaker would be excellent Please send me an email. Thank you very much in advance. Kind regards, At 21:09:28 on Sun, 4 Apr 2004, Alex <alexander27@ewetel.net> wrote in <c4pmgl$s6u$1@news1.ewetel.de>: >I am looking for someone who can help me a little with my homepage which is >written in English. A Native English speaker would be excellent Please send >me an email. Thank you very much in advance. Basically, we like to conduct business on the newsgroup itself - that way, you don't get the same thing repeated over and over in separate e-mails, and if anybody says anything that is wrong it can be corrected. Give us the URL of your home page and we'll have a look at it.  SignatureMolly Mockford I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be! (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) > At 21:09:28 on Sun, 4 Apr 2004, Alex <alexander27@ewetel.net> wrote in > <c4pmgl$s6u$1@news1.ewetel.de>: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Give us the URL of your home page and we'll have a look at it. I won't. For whom are you speaking when you make such an offer? Giles. At 05:00:00 on Mon, 5 Apr 2004, Giles Todd <g@prullenbak.todd.nu> wrote in <gni170p3ls85miqa68aqm5lngektdbr4oh@4ax.com>: >> Give us the URL of your home page and we'll have a look at it. > >I won't. For whom are you speaking when you make such an offer? OK, perhaps I should have said: "Give us the URL of your home page and a subset of us will have a look at it." Or, since some people might not even read the post containing the URL: "Give a subset of us the URL of your home page and a subset of that subset will have a look at it." Or just go with the OP's suggestion, do it all by e-mail, and forget all about that quaint thing known as Usenet? SignatureMolly Mockford I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be! (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) > At 05:00:00 on Mon, 5 Apr 2004, Giles Todd <g@prullenbak.todd.nu> wrote > in <gni170p3ls85miqa68aqm5lngektdbr4oh@4ax.com>: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Or just go with the OP's suggestion, do it all by e-mail, and forget all > about that quaint thing known as Usenet? Another option: "Give me the URL and I'll have a look at it." It really is possible to speak for oneself in spite of all Margaret Thatcher's efforts to popularize the singular "we". Giles. At 11:00:40 on Mon, 5 Apr 2004, Giles Todd <g@prullenbak.todd.nu> wrote in <bm72709o5k6tbujfg3n77pvr59g5jmio5j@4ax.com>: >Another option: "Give me the URL and I'll have a look at it." But that encourages the OP to revert to e-mail. It is standard practice throughout Usenet to encourage people to read replies to their queries in the newsgroup. It is not a write-only medium. >It really is possible to speak for oneself in spite of all Margaret >Thatcher's efforts to popularize the singular "we". What an extraordinary conclusion to draw! SignatureMolly Mockford I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be! (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) >At 11:00:40 on Mon, 5 Apr 2004, Giles Todd <g@prullenbak.todd.nu> wrote >in <bm72709o5k6tbujfg3n77pvr59g5jmio5j@4ax.com>: > >>Another option: "Give me the URL and I'll have a look at it." > >But that encourages the OP to revert to e-mail. How about: "Give us the URL and I'll have a look at it." SignatureJohn Hall "If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties." Francis Bacon (1561-1626) > >At 11:00:40 on Mon, 5 Apr 2004, Giles Todd <g@prullenbak.todd.nu> wrote > >in <bm72709o5k6tbujfg3n77pvr59g5jmio5j@4ax.com>: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > How about: "Give us the URL and I'll have a look at it." Suits me. Giles. > > >At 11:00:40 on Mon, 5 Apr 2004, Giles Todd <g@prullenbak.todd.nu> wrote > > >in <bm72709o5k6tbujfg3n77pvr59g5jmio5j@4ax.com>: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Suits me. Mind you, the voices in my head me keep telling that I should have written "Suits us." Giles. > >At 11:00:40 on Mon, 5 Apr 2004, Giles Todd <g@prullenbak.todd.nu> wrote > >in <bm72709o5k6tbujfg3n77pvr59g5jmio5j@4ax.com>: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > How about: "Give us the URL and I'll have a look at it." Or, more realistically, "Give us the URL and some of us might have a look at it." -- Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk "I'm not an old fart, and I'm not an old bore, Or a grumpy old b*gg*r like Evelyn Waugh" (Christopher Matthew) >>> At 11:00:40 on Mon, 5 Apr 2004, Giles Todd <g@prullenbak.todd.nu> wrote >>> in <bm72709o5k6tbujfg3n77pvr59g5jmio5j@4ax.com>: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Or, more realistically, "Give us the URL and some of us might have a > look at it." That won't work: you'll just be accused of speaking on behalf of some of us :-) SignatureJohn Briggs > >>> At 11:00:40 on Mon, 5 Apr 2004, Giles Todd <g@prullenbak.todd.nu> wrote > >>> in <bm72709o5k6tbujfg3n77pvr59g5jmio5j@4ax.com>: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > That won't work: you'll just be accused of speaking on behalf of some of us > :-) No at all. I'm not speaking for anybody in particular. I was merely predicting that *possibly* *some* unspecified people *might* look at it. Or possibly, nobody might. Does that last bit mean that I'll now be accused of speaking for nobody? (If so, nothing new there, then.) :-) -- Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II web site www.mike-stevens.co.yk Old grammarians never die, they simply parse away. > But that encourages the OP to revert to e-mail. It is standard practice > throughout Usenet to encourage people to read replies to their queries > in the newsgroup. It is not a write-only medium. I'm still not convinced on that point, given the accumulated evidence to date. But news is certainly a one-to-many medium, rather than a predominantly one-to-one medium such as e-mail (ignoring for the moment 'Cc:' and 'Bcc:' headers) or the telephone (ignoring for the moment conference calls). In each case, an individual states a message. When one uses a one-to-one medium then a response can reasonably be expected. With a one-to-many medium, it is up to an individual reader to decide for him or herself whether or not to respond. The number of responses might vary between zero and the number of people who read the original post. There is no duty on anyone to respond in any manner to a post in news. Hence my surprise when I found myself implicitly volunteered to action by someone I do not know to do something about a post I would otherwise have ignored, except to read the follow-up messages. Giles. > > But that encourages the OP to revert to e-mail. It is standard > > practice throughout Usenet to encourage people to read replies to > > their queries in the newsgroup. It is not a write-only medium. > I'm still not convinced on that point, given the accumulated evidence > to date. But news is certainly a one-to-many medium, rather than a > predominantly one-to-one medium such as e-mail (ignoring for the > moment 'Cc:' and 'Bcc:' headers) or the telephone (ignoring for the > moment conference calls). > In each case, an individual states a message. When one uses a > one-to-one medium then a response can reasonably be expected. With a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > original post. There is no duty on anyone to respond in any manner to > a post in news. > Hence my surprise when I found myself implicitly volunteered to > action by someone I do not know to do something about a post I would > otherwise have ignored, except to read the follow-up messages. I think we see where you're coming from. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/photo/0y14-0.htm What's the difference between a Leeds barmaid and a Tetley Horse? None: they both pull an awful lot of pints! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.