Mrs.Nugatory has used the pseudonym, "Zolaist" in the past.

Perhaps that is an indicator of her attention-seeking behaviour in this NG?

"Fred W4JLE" wrote in message
...
Sounds like some kind of Emile Zola nonsense...

"Spike" wrote in message
...
Truly it can be said that of this week's outbursts
'Les sanglots longs Des violons Du Grand Poseur
Blessent mon coeur D'une langueur Monotone'

You sent me scurrying to my dictionary!

A very "profande" observation of yours, if I may be so bold?

"Walt Davidson" wrote in message
...

"Profanities" are only profane if you are religious, anyway ... and a
lot of people nowadays are not.

Spike:

We construct our messages on machines which were built to do anything. If you
have the correct hardware/software/knowledge you can have a "virtual world"
where all is exactly as you would like.

Still the computer illiterate scream for others to do it for them, clip the
messages, format, etc...

Get a newsreader which does it the way you would like. Or, write a plug-in to
the current newsreader you are using which will do it the way you like (others,
if the problem is a real one, may have already written one for you--search the
net.)

No, there are no mothers here to take care of you, this in not like CW, it is
not required you read these posts....

.... get a clue, the format of newsgroups has changed, adapt or die ...

John

"Spike" wrote in message
...
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 08:28:46 +0100, Spike
wrote:

Ed Price wrote:

Obviously, if you don't take the
time to distill the OP's comments, then you bury your reply under his
verbiage. Perhaps one of the best arguments for editing is that you have to
think about what's important in the previous post. That allows you to focus
your reply.

What an excellent philosophy.

Perhaps the top-posters and non-editors are merely guilty of lack of
focus and an ability to think.


Or are just unwilling to trace over ground already many-times plowed.

Or ploughed.

One thing that top-posters fail to recognise is that not all ng users
set their readers to order posts by thread. It is quite possible, with
a suitable newsreader, to order posts by time and date, rather than
subject.

Unfortunately, those who merely bang the Reply key to top-post their
answer frequently have the point to which they are replying way off
the bottom of the screen, which it is not immediately obvious without
scrolling down.

Top-posting also encorages the lazy or incompetent to avoid properly
trimming their posts.

There are even those who used to trim and bottom-post who now top-post
exclusively, but who quote the RFC as if it is some religious mantra
in some form of self-justification.

from
Aero Spike

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:28:09 GMT, NunYa Bidness wrote:

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.

His utter idiot what?

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 14:37:10 +0000, Jock. wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 09:50:34 -0400, 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.

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

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

What's so bloody important about your time?

Don't top-post.

73 de Jock.

Don't be so anal-retentive. There will always be those who insist on
top-posting. If you don't like it, don't read their posts. You'll be
missing about half of the posts on usenet, but then we won't have to read
your repeated whinery about top-posters.

Ed

RA:

It starts out:

First they want bottom posting...
Next they want editing...
Next NO typos...
Next you have to agree with them...
Next you have to read it for them...

....

At some point, Nancy Regan pops in and restores sanity, by recommending, "Just
say NO!"

John

"Radio Active" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:28:09 GMT, NunYa Bidness wrote:

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.

His utter idiot what?

Well, since we're being blunt, you can stick it where the sun don't
shine. I've been on the internet since before it was the commonly
available, and I think bottom posting is foolish, and wastes time.

And I am man enough to admit who I am.

Wimp.

tom
K0TAR

NunYa Bidness wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 19:34:31 GMT, Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI
Gave us:


NunYa Bidness wrote:

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:06:46 -0400, "David.Shrader"
Gave us:



In the words of that greatest american philosopher: "De Ja Vous, all
over again" --- Y. Berra

It's time to let this issue die.



Top posting idiots BOTH of you!

One, and possibly the only good thing about top posting is that it
****es you off.


Who said that I was ****ed? I am merely declaring those retards
that do top post what exactly they are... ****ing abject idiots.
Try again.

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 17:30:17 -0700, John Smith wrote:

RA:

It starts out:

First they want bottom posting...
Next they want editing...
Next NO typos...
Next you have to agree with them...
Next you have to read it for them...

...

At some point, Nancy Regan pops in and restores sanity, by recommending, "Just
say NO!"

Someone has to come in and restore sanity. Oh my, I sorta top posted...



"Radio Active" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:28:09 GMT, NunYa Bidness wrote:

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.

His utter idiot what?

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 04:27:32 GMT, Gave us:



If you're keeping up with the conversation, top posting is far
more efficinet then reading the bottom posters who expect ou to scroll
through a hunderd liones oof crap so you can find out their
contribution consisted of "Huh?"


You don't get it, asswipe. It isn't about YOUR convenience.

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 04:33:54 GMT, Gave us:


What a bunch of psychobabble. Keep your soft science (at best)
off of a technical forum.

Do you like attempting (and failing) at telling others what to do?
Screw you, boy.

Like I said, if you claim to be so technical conform to the
protocol, don't bitch about how you like to be lazy and call it a
matter of convenience.