On 5 Nov 2013 09:32:34 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

1. That post is from 28 october, as a reply to the above
mentioned post. it comes AFTER that post.

2. That post is not from me.


This was a mistake. It was "nospam" who ... ... quoted from a
URL

This too was a mistake. The date of the article was 27 Oct.



Sandman:
Huh? You are replying to a post of mine where I am pointing to two
of your errors and then you say I missed those errors? What are
you on about?

Two different errors ...

So you made four errors? I don't see the difference, quoted above. Mine are
labeled 1 and 2, they concern who wrote the post and the date of the
post.

Below are your stated errors, which apart from containing another error (it
was the 28th, ...

Look at the message header.

... not the 27th) are in relation to the same two errors you
made. I just don't understand why you would reply to my post and outline
the same errors again?

Where you already admitted to your mistake - without trying to
make it seem like I had "missed" something.

I told you my news group files were in a mess.

BUt you still replied to the same post twice. And you still repeated the
summary of the errors in the post you were replying to. Something is in a
mess here...

And I've just received 40 'new' articles about the best way to index
photographs - dating from the middle of August. If you don't realise
its not really new its quite easy to respond to an article a second
time.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens