"Sheldon" >, if that's their real name, wrote:

>
>Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
>> "Sheldon" >, if that's their real name, wrote:
>>
>> >Aha! I found it... and with all four (4) superflouous commas exactly
>> >how Bob typed them... and this time I won't number them. Carol, If
>> >I can find Bob's post on Google then so can you... perhaps you *chose*
>> >not to look very carefully. See below:
>> >
>> >-------------
>> > Bob Apr 6, 3:26 am
>> >Newsgroups: rec.food.cooking
>> >From: "Bob" >
>> >Date: 6 Apr 2005 05:26:05 -0500
>> >Local: Wed, Apr 6 2005 3:26 am
>> >Subject: Coconut oil for baking?
>> >
>> >Nancree wrote:
>> >> Coconut oil is NOT one of the healthy oils.
>> >
>> >At the end of January, "Ken Davey" posted:
>> >
>> >"Recent thinking has it that coconut oil is one of the healthiest
>> >available.
>> >http://www.mercola.com/2003/se**p/13/coconut_oil.htm"
>> >
>> >Of course, since that site SELLS coconut oil, I'm not so sure that
>Ken
>> >didn't fall for marketing hype. I'm not going to load up on coconut
>> >oil, in any case.
>> >
>> >Bob
>>
>> Where's the B,B,B,B,Bob that you posted? That's what I was replying
>about.
>> Is it that you don't like the commas within the above paragraph? I'm
>not
>> trying to be a bitch here. I just don't understand what the problem
>is.
>>
>> Carol
>
>For someone who admittedly doesn't understand you were sure quick to
>take sides (is the sex good).

I honestly thought that you were saying that the problem was the B,B,B
thing that you added. I didn't take a side. I use many commas in my
writing, too. So I didn't even notice what you were reacting to.

>It's the commas within the body of his
>post (look right up there) that are superfluous, especially the one in
>the last sentence that I focused on... I added the "B,B,B,B,Boob"
>"stutter" as an extra added attraction... I don't know why that it's
>not obvious that I added that stutter part, couldn't be any more
>ob,b,b,bvious. I'm talking about the commas appearing within the body
>of his post that he typed, including the one in his attribution... all
>four are not only totally unnecessary, they muddle the meaning of what
>is said to the point that his post is unintelligible. Commas are the
>bane of Usenet. If you're in doubt leave em out.

I've actually been trying to do that. I'm pretty sure that most of my
commas are appropriate, but I'm trying to fit in better with the status
quo.

>So, Carol, what's this BITCHY business about your attributing me with
>"if that's their real name"? I do use my real name, always have. I
>don't remember if you were here yet when I used "penmart10"...
>penMARTIN. Martin is my REAL last name, and 'pen" because I collect
>pens. It got changed when AOL screwed up and so I had to choose a new
>handle and chose my present handle... penmart01. I've always signed my
>REAL first name, Sheldon. Sheldon Martin is my REAL name, always was.
>Unlike so many others I don't munge. In all the years I've posted to
>Newsgroups I've always used my REAL name, and at this point there is no
>one else posting to rfc longer than me... more than 90% I consider
>newbies, and that's because they are newbies.

Check out my other posts. That's the heading I use for all of my responses
to everyone. It's automatic. If you would like to suggest an alternative,
I'd be interested in considering it. I'm not attacking you at all. You've
been very likeable of late, and I have no intention of putting you down.

>Your Bob is a newbie, you're a newbie too.

He's not my Bob. He's just a poster who(m?) I respect.

I've actually thought of writing to you (we've had great conversations in
the past). I'm beginning to suspect that my e-mail would be unwelcome.

Carol
--
Coming at you live, from beautiful Lake Woebegon