On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:53:42 -0700, "John Smith"
Gave us:

You guys are all wet, as usual... satisfied-smirk


I suppose then that you consider yourself to be firmly grounded in
reality.

Firmly grounded?

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...

John

"NunYa Bidness" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:53:42 -0700, "John Smith"
Gave us:

You guys are all wet, as usual... satisfied-smirk


I suppose then that you consider yourself to be firmly grounded in
reality.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.