|
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 09:16:01 +0000, NunYa Bidness wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:49:42 -0400, keith Gave us: I hope you don't get your engineering information from CBS news too. They have a second channel now? :-) Sure, they've been channeling a lot. -- Keith |
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 05:24:20 -0700, "John Smith"
Gave us: Firmly grounded? Yes. You made an all wet joke. I made an electrical joke that you should have gotten. Actually, when I am finished installing the mercedes turbo-jet engine in the CFA, I plan on flying it!--well, after installing the carbon graphite wings... Perhaps you did. Top posting is very bad. |
OK.
It is like this, years ago, in the 1980's, when telnet was still being used on the predecessors of newsgroups, there was no way to logically organize "posts." Still, into the 90's, most all "news clients" lacked any meaningful way to organize threads and/or posts. At the end of the 90's a few news clients managed to "get-it-together" and organize threads and posts with pretty good results. Now it is 2005. Windows xp comes with a completely functional news reader which holds threads and posts in perfect order--no longer do I have to have the text being responded to placed above the text which is being issued in response. Still, many ancient news readers are in use, and the users have not bothered to upgrade them. Also, many are reading these posts from webpages... That is all their responsibility now, if they are unwilling or unable to setup a decent news reader and come up to speed, that is their problem--there is NO longer a real need to bottom post, indeed, it only slows down ones interaction with the group and places an un-necessary burden to be cutting and pruning text... .... the etiquette and use manuals of usenet need upgrading ... I will be top posting... end of story... John "NunYa Bidness" wrote in message ... On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 05:24:20 -0700, "John Smith" Gave us: Firmly grounded? Yes. You made an all wet joke. I made an electrical joke that you should have gotten. Actually, when I am finished installing the mercedes turbo-jet engine in the CFA, I plan on flying it!--well, after installing the carbon graphite wings... Perhaps you did. Top posting is very bad. |
oh yeah...
It is a half-wave CFA. No ground plane/counterpoise is needed... I live in calif, who worries about lightning here... grin John "NunYa Bidness" wrote in message ... On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 05:24:20 -0700, "John Smith" Gave us: Firmly grounded? Yes. You made an all wet joke. I made an electrical joke that you should have gotten. Actually, when I am finished installing the mercedes turbo-jet engine in the CFA, I plan on flying it!--well, after installing the carbon graphite wings... Perhaps you did. Top posting is very bad. |
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 11:27:56 -0700, "John Smith"
Gave us: OK. It is like this, years ago, in the 1980's, when telnet was still being used on the predecessors of newsgroups, there was no way to logically organize "posts." I think that you have history problems. Still, into the 90's, most all "news clients" lacked any meaningful way to organize threads and/or posts. I know that you have history problems. At the end of the 90's a few news clients managed to "get-it-together" and organize threads and posts with pretty good results. I think that you have a problem with opinion over fact as well. Now it is 2005. Windows xp comes with a completely functional news reader which holds threads and posts in perfect order--no longer do I have to have the text being responded to placed above the text which is being issued in response. Guess what? You are not the only person that is reading a thread, and those that are are not all on windows xp. Outlook express is a dog. It has also been around way longer than XP has. You assume way too much, and those assumptions have ALWAYS screwed up someone that doesn't live in your perfect world of "organized articles". There are protocols in place for this very reason, and all the logic you throw at it doesn't change that fact. Still, many ancient news readers are in use, and the users have not bothered to upgrade them. That has not a thing to do with the problem. Your opinion about what is or is not a good news reader has NO bearing on proper protocol. The problem is that posters such as yourself ASSUME way too much, and no one else in the world needs to cater to YOUR idea of what is modern. Again, Outhouse Express is a total dog. That opinion is held in the eyes of many. Also, many are reading these posts from webpages... Another tragic screw up. Especially when they reply from web access. That is all their responsibility now, if they are unwilling or unable to setup a decent news reader and come up to speed, that is their problem I find that you are unwilling or to stupid to understand the fact that not everyone even reads news the way you do. I happen to read posts chronologically, despite my reader's capacity to show threads in a grouped manner. That is a choice. Deciding to throw out the standard accepted decades long protocols based on your opinion of what is or is not modern is just plain arrogant ignorance. --there is NO longer a real need to bottom post, indeed, it only slows down ones interaction with the group and places an un-necessary burden to be cutting and pruning text... You are NOT anyone that can declare such a thing. ... the etiquette and use manuals of usenet need upgrading ... Your brain needs to conform. That is the only upgrade required. You claim others haven't gotten up to your modern standard and that is where YOU are wrong. Despite any news reader clients capacity for sorting articles, it is ALWAYS proper to make the post in a manner such that a person reading ONLY that post can garner the gist of the article WITHOUT any requisite to read additional articles. THAT is the whole point. Not only that, but you idiots invariably quote the entire article to which you respond, which is another mistake. I will be top posting... You are stupid... You utilization of Outhouse Express proves that beyond a doubt. I am surprised that you aren't posting in HTML and defending that as well. What a total ditz you must be. end of story... End of fact finding and declaring mission. |
"Walt Davidson" wrote in message ... And I will be killfiling you, like all other top-posting fools .... because top-posters invariably have nothing to say that is worth reading. Goodbye. What? Polymath too? Surely not... -- 73s de Walter R. |
Ohh gee:
Killfiled :( What if I told ya to shove the whole killfile up yer bum, would that make it ok? ROFLOL "Walt Davidson" wrote in message ... On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 11:27:56 -0700, "John Smith" wrote: I will be top posting... And I will be killfiling you, like all other top-posting fools .... because top-posters invariably have nothing to say that is worth reading. Goodbye. -- Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com |
And I thought you Brits were supposed to be so tolerant of diversity... Here
I find you making broad generalizations based on the position of words on a screen. One can only assume you are a narrow minded word position bigot! You will be doomed to hell for your non politically correct speech, possibly even jailed for hate speech... "Walt Davidson" wrote in message ... On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 11:27:56 -0700, "John Smith" wrote: I will be top posting... And I will be killfiling you, like all other top-posting fools .... because top-posters invariably have nothing to say that is worth reading. Goodbye. -- Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com |
Nunya:
Look, I am not even going to take the time to read all that crap. If you want to say something to me, don't intermingle it together with all the text I just wrote, I remember what I wrote, just write a damn reply... However, I think the jest (haha) of your text attempts to make me format my text for your text reader--get a clue buddy, if you want to read it, you format it!!! Killfile me otherwise, I will be crushed, but I will get over it... John "NunYa Bidness" wrote in message ... On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 11:27:56 -0700, "John Smith" Gave us: OK. It is like this, years ago, in the 1980's, when telnet was still being used on the predecessors of newsgroups, there was no way to logically organize "posts." I think that you have history problems. Still, into the 90's, most all "news clients" lacked any meaningful way to organize threads and/or posts. I know that you have history problems. At the end of the 90's a few news clients managed to "get-it-together" and organize threads and posts with pretty good results. I think that you have a problem with opinion over fact as well. Now it is 2005. Windows xp comes with a completely functional news reader which holds threads and posts in perfect order--no longer do I have to have the text being responded to placed above the text which is being issued in response. Guess what? You are not the only person that is reading a thread, and those that are are not all on windows xp. Outlook express is a dog. It has also been around way longer than XP has. You assume way too much, and those assumptions have ALWAYS screwed up someone that doesn't live in your perfect world of "organized articles". There are protocols in place for this very reason, and all the logic you throw at it doesn't change that fact. Still, many ancient news readers are in use, and the users have not bothered to upgrade them. That has not a thing to do with the problem. Your opinion about what is or is not a good news reader has NO bearing on proper protocol. The problem is that posters such as yourself ASSUME way too much, and no one else in the world needs to cater to YOUR idea of what is modern. Again, Outhouse Express is a total dog. That opinion is held in the eyes of many. Also, many are reading these posts from webpages... Another tragic screw up. Especially when they reply from web access. That is all their responsibility now, if they are unwilling or unable to setup a decent news reader and come up to speed, that is their problem I find that you are unwilling or to stupid to understand the fact that not everyone even reads news the way you do. I happen to read posts chronologically, despite my reader's capacity to show threads in a grouped manner. That is a choice. Deciding to throw out the standard accepted decades long protocols based on your opinion of what is or is not modern is just plain arrogant ignorance. --there is NO longer a real need to bottom post, indeed, it only slows down ones interaction with the group and places an un-necessary burden to be cutting and pruning text... You are NOT anyone that can declare such a thing. ... the etiquette and use manuals of usenet need upgrading ... Your brain needs to conform. That is the only upgrade required. You claim others haven't gotten up to your modern standard and that is where YOU are wrong. Despite any news reader clients capacity for sorting articles, it is ALWAYS proper to make the post in a manner such that a person reading ONLY that post can garner the gist of the article WITHOUT any requisite to read additional articles. THAT is the whole point. Not only that, but you idiots invariably quote the entire article to which you respond, which is another mistake. I will be top posting... You are stupid... You utilization of Outhouse Express proves that beyond a doubt. I am surprised that you aren't posting in HTML and defending that as well. What a total ditz you must be. end of story... End of fact finding and declaring mission. |
Fred:
I hate to admit it, but that made me damn near split a gut! lol John "Fred W4JLE" wrote in message ... And I thought you Brits were supposed to be so tolerant of diversity... Here I find you making broad generalizations based on the position of words on a screen. One can only assume you are a narrow minded word position bigot! You will be doomed to hell for your non politically correct speech, possibly even jailed for hate speech... "Walt Davidson" wrote in message ... On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 11:27:56 -0700, "John Smith" wrote: I will be top posting... And I will be killfiling you, like all other top-posting fools .... because top-posters invariably have nothing to say that is worth reading. Goodbye. -- Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com |
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 19:59:23 +0100, Walt Davidson
Gave us: On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 11:27:56 -0700, "John Smith" wrote: I will be top posting... And I will be killfiling you, like all other top-posting fools .... because top-posters invariably have nothing to say that is worth reading. Goodbye. Oh yeah... I forgot to mention that this is the other effect of top posting. Good job. |
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:36:01 -0400, "Fred W4JLE"
Gave us: And I thought you Brits were supposed to be so tolerant of diversity... Here I find you making broad generalizations based on the position of words on a screen. One can only assume you are a narrow minded word position bigot! You will be doomed to hell for your non politically correct speech, possibly even jailed for hate speech... Top posting in a forum for professionals, when one claims to be one, and the PROTOCOL is NOT to do so, could easily be argued as quite narrow minded. The word for today is CONFORMITY. You conform to standards every day. Many that you have no choice on. In these forums, just because your lame news reader was written by a total ditz that gets way more money for his products than he deserves, doesn't mean that you should just go with your lazy assed flow. Do you also wear your pants down past your ass, like these other kids today? |
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 12:38:23 -0700, "John Smith"
Gave us: Nunya: Look, I am not even going to take the time to read all that crap. Yet another fallacy of your basic stupid top posting twit. If you want to say something to me, don't intermingle it together with all the text I just wrote, I remember what I wrote, just write a damn reply... Look, ditzo boy, I answer where appropriate. LEARN a bit about Usenet, dumbass. However, I think the jest (haha) of your text attempts to make me format my text for your text reader--get a clue buddy, if you want to read it, you format it!!! I don't want to read it. I feel that I will subsequently be filtering it. The IT being you. Killfile me otherwise, I will be crushed, but I will get over it... You're an idiot, and it looks as if you won't be getting over that fact. An easy tell is that you quoted 100 lines to post your utter tripe. Thank you for proving my points. |
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 13:06:49 -0700, "John Smith"
Gave us: Fred: I hate to admit it, but that made me damn near split a gut! lol Said the idiot that quoted 35 lines to make yet another unprofessional, one liner, stupid, off topic reply. |
NunYa:
As senior software engineer, you bet I know about conformance!!! I set the rules... well, unless someone can propose a good argument why they should be broken. Yanno, that is what college is all about, you are forced to learn the rules--so you can effectively bend and break 'em for a buck... John "NunYa Bidness" wrote in message ... On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:36:01 -0400, "Fred W4JLE" Gave us: And I thought you Brits were supposed to be so tolerant of diversity... Here I find you making broad generalizations based on the position of words on a screen. One can only assume you are a narrow minded word position bigot! You will be doomed to hell for your non politically correct speech, possibly even jailed for hate speech... Top posting in a forum for professionals, when one claims to be one, and the PROTOCOL is NOT to do so, could easily be argued as quite narrow minded. The word for today is CONFORMITY. You conform to standards every day. Many that you have no choice on. In these forums, just because your lame news reader was written by a total ditz that gets way more money for his products than he deserves, doesn't mean that you should just go with your lazy assed flow. Do you also wear your pants down past your ass, like these other kids today? |
Waaaaaaaa...
Waaaaaaa... Waaaa... Ok, I feel better now... :) John "NunYa Bidness" wrote in message ... On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 19:59:23 +0100, Walt Davidson Gave us: On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 11:27:56 -0700, "John Smith" wrote: I will be top posting... And I will be killfiling you, like all other top-posting fools .... because top-posters invariably have nothing to say that is worth reading. Goodbye. Oh yeah... I forgot to mention that this is the other effect of top posting. Good job. |
Forget it, just remember this, if you are short, to the point, and ALL
the text is logical and necessary, I read it--if not, forget it... really, I expect the same others regarding my text... John "NunYa Bidness" wrote in message ... On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 12:38:23 -0700, "John Smith" Gave us: Nunya: Look, I am not even going to take the time to read all that crap. Yet another fallacy of your basic stupid top posting twit. If you want to say something to me, don't intermingle it together with all the text I just wrote, I remember what I wrote, just write a damn reply... Look, ditzo boy, I answer where appropriate. LEARN a bit about Usenet, dumbass. However, I think the jest (haha) of your text attempts to make me format my text for your text reader--get a clue buddy, if you want to read it, you format it!!! I don't want to read it. I feel that I will subsequently be filtering it. The IT being you. Killfile me otherwise, I will be crushed, but I will get over it... You're an idiot, and it looks as if you won't be getting over that fact. An easy tell is that you quoted 100 lines to post your utter tripe. Thank you for proving my points. |
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:24:02 -0700, "John Smith"
Gave us: NunYa: As senior software engineer, you bet I know about conformance!!! Apparently not, you top posting twit. I set the rules... well, unless someone can propose a good argument why they should be broken. You are breaking the rules. You certainly don't get to declare them in a forum that has been around long before you began posting to it. Yanno, that is what college is all about, you are forced to learn the rules--so you can effectively bend and break 'em for a buck... Aahhhh... The age old "I do whatever the hell I want." argument. Nobody is getting paid here, dingledorf. It is a matter of common courtesy. |
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:24:52 -0700, "John Smith"
Gave us: Waaaaaaaa... Wussy Waaaaaaa... Wussy Waaaa... Wussy. Ok, I feel better now... :) Major, inconsiderate wussy. John Yes... you. |
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:27:02 -0700, "John Smith"
Gave us: Forget it, just remember this, if you are short, The only thing you are short on in this issue, is brains. to the point, You have expressed exactly zero valid points. and ALL the text is logical and necessary, Like the 100 line quoted texts you seem to ignore? You know little or nothing about Usenet, if you cannot even follow the first rule. I read it--if not, forget it... More like, forget you. really, I expect the same others regarding my text... It isn't about "your" text. The posts aren't about "you", nor are they for you... even your own posts. You don't appear to be someone that can get that simple fact. |
Forget it...
I can now go the rest of my life with no futher conversation with you. You have nothing I need... John "NunYa Bidness" wrote in message ... On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:27:02 -0700, "John Smith" Gave us: Forget it, just remember this, if you are short, The only thing you are short on in this issue, is brains. to the point, You have expressed exactly zero valid points. and ALL the text is logical and necessary, Like the 100 line quoted texts you seem to ignore? You know little or nothing about Usenet, if you cannot even follow the first rule. I read it--if not, forget it... More like, forget you. really, I expect the same others regarding my text... It isn't about "your" text. The posts aren't about "you", nor are they for you... even your own posts. You don't appear to be someone that can get that simple fact. |
Dude:
I leave you here. If top posting is a real issue to you, I just hope you will survive life when a real problem comes your way... I'd suggest you killfile me, or get used to top posting... John "NunYa Bidness" wrote in message ... On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:24:02 -0700, "John Smith" Gave us: NunYa: As senior software engineer, you bet I know about conformance!!! Apparently not, you top posting twit. I set the rules... well, unless someone can propose a good argument why they should be broken. You are breaking the rules. You certainly don't get to declare them in a forum that has been around long before you began posting to it. Yanno, that is what college is all about, you are forced to learn the rules--so you can effectively bend and break 'em for a buck... Aahhhh... The age old "I do whatever the hell I want." argument. Nobody is getting paid here, dingledorf. It is a matter of common courtesy. |
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:24:02 -0700, "John Smith"
drivelled: Yanno, that is what college is all about, you are forced to learn the rules--so you can effectively bend and break 'em for a buck... If you get paid a buck for anything, you are grossly overpaid. |
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 12:38:23 -0700, "John Smith"
drivelled: If you want to say something to me, don't intermingle it together with all the text I just wrote, I remember what I wrote, just write a damn reply... He probably just did that because the average American seems to have the attention span of a goldfish. Not that I have anything against Americans. In fact I support several charities that look after dumb creatures. |
John Smith wrote:
Dude: I leave you here. If top posting is a real issue to you, I just hope you will survive life when a real problem comes your way... I'd suggest you killfile me, or get used to top posting... Please don't top post. |
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. Get a life. There's much more to life than criticizing where a response is posted. NunYa Bidness wrote: On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:24:02 -0700, "John Smith" Gave us: NunYa: As senior software engineer, you bet I know about conformance!!! Apparently not, you top posting twit. I set the rules... well, unless someone can propose a good argument why they should be broken. You are breaking the rules. You certainly don't get to declare them in a forum that has been around long before you began posting to it. Yanno, that is what college is all about, you are forced to learn the rules--so you can effectively bend and break 'em for a buck... Aahhhh... The age old "I do whatever the hell I want." argument. Nobody is getting paid here, dingledorf. It is a matter of common courtesy. |
Why not?? It's much more efficient use of my time.
huLLy wrote: John Smith wrote: Dude: I leave you here. If top posting is a real issue to you, I just hope you will survive life when a real problem comes your way... I'd suggest you killfile me, or get used to top posting... Please don't top post. |
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. "Ham op" wrote in message ... 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. Get a life. There's much more to life than criticizing where a response is posted. |
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. -- The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity. - George Bernard Shaw |
See, I had to SNIP to get to the important portion of your message.
'My Time' is all I've got. Once it's gone, it's gone! I don't get any more. Jock, I hope you use your time wisely. Don't waste it reading 'replies to replies of replies'. Get to the issue quickly. TOP POST. Jock. wrote: SNIPPED What's so bloody important about your time? Don't top-post. 73 de Jock. |
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? -- 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 =---- |
.... get a gui news reader...
John "huLLy" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: Dude: I leave you here. If top posting is a real issue to you, I just hope you will survive life when a real problem comes your way... I'd suggest you killfile me, or get used to top posting... Please don't top post. |
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... Let'em get a decent news reader... John "Ham op" wrote in message ... 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. Get a life. There's much more to life than criticizing where a response is posted. NunYa Bidness wrote: On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:24:02 -0700, "John Smith" Gave us: NunYa: As senior software engineer, you bet I know about conformance!!! Apparently not, you top posting twit. I set the rules... well, unless someone can propose a good argument why they should be broken. You are breaking the rules. You certainly don't get to declare them in a forum that has been around long before you began posting to it. Yanno, that is what college is all about, you are forced to learn the rules--so you can effectively bend and break 'em for a buck... Aahhhh... The age old "I do whatever the hell I want." argument. Nobody is getting paid here, dingledorf. It is a matter of common courtesy. |
Polymath:
Yep, unless you have all day to start paging though past commented texts of posts--top posting is where it is at!!! 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! Only reason you should have a problem these days, is if you are still using telnet to read your news and email! John "Polymath" wrote in message ... 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. "Ham op" wrote in message ... 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. Get a life. There's much more to life than criticizing where a response is posted. |
Jock:
Could you stop bottom posting, there are already too many here with that bad habit! grin John "Jock." wrote in message ... 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. -- The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity. - George Bernard Shaw |
Cecil:
What? The hams are now attempting to set rules for usenet posting? Have they began to claim they invented newsgroups too? Just after they invented the internet and letting Al Gore help 'em? grin John "Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... 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? -- 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 =---- |
Big Mac:
Hmmm, that statement could only come from a person who, if anyone let them work for them (be an employee), they are grossly negligent! No wonder you can't decent service at Mc Donalds!!! They got Big Mac serving now!!! innocent-look John "Big Mac." wrote in message ... On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:24:02 -0700, "John Smith" drivelled: Yanno, that is what college is all about, you are forced to learn the rules--so you can effectively bend and break 'em for a buck... If you get paid a buck for anything, you are grossly overpaid. |
Big Mac:
Well, that text of mine is pretty direct and may seem a bit un-feeling... Really, if someone is so mentally handicapped, or suffers Alzheimer's where they need the text they are responding to right there so they can read it every few seconds... I can make allowances for the ones with "special needs"... John "Big Mac." wrote in message ... On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 12:38:23 -0700, "John Smith" drivelled: If you want to say something to me, don't intermingle it together with all the text I just wrote, I remember what I wrote, just write a damn reply... He probably just did that because the average American seems to have the attention span of a goldfish. Not that I have anything against Americans. In fact I support several charities that look after dumb creatures. |
The English are not very spiritual people, so they
invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity. - George Bernard Shaw Did George top post or bottom post? |
Reg:
Your posts are too few. But, when you post the posts are relevant in the most interesting of ways. That was a ZINGER!!!! John "Reg Edwards" wrote in message ... The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity. - George Bernard Shaw Did George top post or bottom post? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:28 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com