Cecil ... GUIDELINES are not cast in concrete!!


Cecil Moore wrote:

Ham op wrote:

I've used the internet since 1985 [DARPA net] and have yet to see the
11th commandment prohibiting top posting or forcing bottom posting.


Have you read the usenet posting guidelines?

John Smith wrote:
What? The hams are now attempting to set rules for usenet posting?

There are indeed guidelines for usenet postings to the
rec.radio.amateur.* newsgroups. I had that URL on my
computer that crashed. A web search will probably
reveal them.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Ham op wrote:
Cecil ... GUIDELINES are not cast in concrete!!

Is that a yes or a no answer?

Cecil Moore wrote:
Have you read the usenet posting guidelines?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 09:50:34 -0400, Ham op Gave
us:

I've used the internet since 1985 [DARPA net] and have yet to see the
11th commandment prohibiting top posting or forcing bottom posting.

I prefer TOP POSTING. I've read the original message previously


It isn't about what you have read, or what you have stored. Get a
clue.

, it is
stored sequentially on my computer sorted by thread and date if I need a
refresher, and I don't have to scroll through a lot of attached garbage
to get to your meaningful or meaningless comments.

What you fail to realize is that what you have stored, and the
manner which you read Usenet is not how everyone does it. The
protocols (which do exist) are in place to increase understanding of
the post from that very post, without the need to look up or download
additional posts. Are you getting it yet?


TOP POSTING, IMO, provides much more efficient use of my time.

You are what Usenet users that actually know what the forum is about
call LAZY. How hard can it be, and a few seconds is not some critical
number. Are you really that pathetic?


Get a life. There's much more to life than criticizing where a response
is posted.

Funny that the only places idiots like you conform is when there is
no way to get what you want otherwise, or if a cop has a gun pointed
at you. You are the same type of idiot I see here in California that
doesn't stop for stopped traffic. They traverse either to the right
or left like little inertial idiots, or the idiots that wear their
pants down past their ass.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 09:51:20 -0400, Ham op Gave
us:

Why not?? It's much more efficient use of my time.


How was it any easier to post that one line tripe at the top than
where it belongs? How easy, oh yeah... a couple of clicks. You are
one lazy *******.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 15:06:54 +0100, "Polymath"
Gave us:

Indeed, the "governing" RFC even went so far as to
state that bottom posting was the preferred method
of the author but that there was no hard and fast rule
about it.

With top posting, you can quickly "thumb" through the
posts with your hand on the "Next" button. With bottom
posting you have to page down through much already-seen
and over-quoted material. The net result is that bottom-posted
articles tend to get skipped without the new material being read
let alone being visible.

If you are skipping posts in threads which you were at one time
reading, you have some serious skills problems that go far beyond your
simplistic laziness to use more than one clic per post. You have the
mentality of a high school drop-out.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 10:35:46 -0700, "John Smith"
Gave us:

... get a gui news reader...

Don't top post. It has absolutely no bearing on which news client is
in use.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 10:38:07 -0700, "John Smith"
Gave us:

Ham Op:

I think some must still be attempting to use old linux/unix/dos news
readers from the commandline--only way they could have a problem other
than attempting to use one of the first GUI news readers ever
programmed...

Your knowledge of what is or is not use or that of what is or is not
a gui based reader is hovering around nil.

Let'em get a decent news reader...

Your knowledge of what a "decent news reader is IS at nil.

Your knowledge of this forum, and the proper way to utilize it is
not at nil as you have been informed. You simply ignore the facts and
choose to be a backward ass about it.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 10:41:09 -0700, "John Smith"
Gave us:

Some people have been sold the line that there is something leet about
bottom posting--obviously they haven't a clue... but even think they
fool others!

Your an utter idiot.

TnVuWWE6DQoNCkkgaGF2ZSByZWFsbHkgbm8gb3RoZXIgY2hvaW NlIHRoYW4gdG8gbm93IGNvbnNp
ZGVyIHlvdSBhIG1pbmRsZXNzIGlkaW90Li4uDQoNCllvdSBoYX ZlIGJlZW4gdG9sZCBtYW55IHRp
bWVzIG5vLi4uDQoNCkpvaG4NCg0KIk51bllhIEJpZG5lc3MiID xudW55YWJpZG5lc3NAbnVueWFi
aWRuZXNzLm9yZz4gd3JvdGUgaW4gbWVzc2FnZSBuZXdzOjM5NT hlMWhkdXQzZzBiYjhoNTNnN2oy
M2VkMmxtMWZ2bWZANGF4LmNvbS4uLg0KPiBPbiBTdW4sIDI0IE p1bCAyMDA1IDEwOjM1OjQ2IC0w
NzAwLCAiSm9obiBTbWl0aCINCj4gPGFzc2VtYmx5d2l6YXJkQG dtYWlsLmNvbT4gR2F2ZSB1czoN
Cj4gDQo+Pi4uLiBnZXQgYSBndWkgbmV3cyByZWFkZXIuLi4NCj 4gDQo+IERvbid0IHRvcCBwb3N0
LiAgSXQgaGFzIGFic29sdXRlbHkgbm8gYmVhcmluZyBvbiB3aG ljaCBuZXdzIGNsaWVudCBpcw0K
PiBpbiB1c2Uu