"Ryan Breai, village idiot" ranted in message
...

A condemnation, therefore, of the CBisation taking place...

Not only can the village idiot not spell, he cannot post properly.

From the relevant part of RFC 1885

- If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
enough text of the original to give a context. This will make
sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context
helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!


Geoff

The first thing I must say is....grow up, Geoff!

There is no call for you to resort to infantile outbursts,
such as your gratuitous use of "village idiot" below. You
are of the age when you should have left the school
playground well behind, and are giving a very poor example
for young noviciates of the art to follow.

Shame on you.

The crucial point in what you quote below is the comma
appearing in "top of the message, or include just" in the
second line. This shows quite clearly that two disparate
options are being discussed. EITHER summarise at the
top OR include enough text to give a context.

My top posting with quotation beneath satisfies the
second option.

Geoff wrote in message
...
"Ryan Breai, village idiot" ranted in message
...
A condemnation, therefore, of the CBisation taking place...
Not only can the village idiot not spell, he cannot post properly.
From the relevant part of RFC 1885
- If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
enough text of the original to give a context. This will make
sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context
helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!

Geoff wrote in message
...

"Ryan Breai, village idiot" ranted in message
...

A condemnation, therefore, of the CBisation taking place...

Not only can the village idiot not spell, he cannot post properly.
From the relevant part of RFC 1885

- If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message or include just
enough text of the original to give a context. This will make
sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context
helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!


"Ryan Breai" wrote in news:3fc7840c_2@mk-nntp-
1.news.uk.worldonline.com:

The first thing I must say is....grow up, Geoff!

There is no call for you to resort to infantile outbursts,
such as your gratuitous use of "village idiot" below. You
are of the age when you should have left the school
playground well behind, and are giving a very poor example
for young noviciates of the art to follow.

Shame on you.

The crucial point in what you quote below is the comma
appearing in "top of the message, or include just" in the
second line. This shows quite clearly that two disparate
options are being discussed. EITHER summarise at the
top OR include enough text to give a context.

My top posting with quotation beneath satisfies the
second option.


Five points arise from your post:

Firstly, I "grew up" years back.

Secondly, I was using the term "The Village Idiot" as provided in the
newsgroup post header that I read. Given a reasonable newsreader, you
should be able to se this yourself but I reproduce it below for your
convenience:

"Ryan Breai, village idiot" ranted in message
...

Third: My comment on spelling: my copy of the O.E.D. does not recognise
"CBisation", nor does Websters - anyway, if it was of US origin, it would
have been spelt with a "z".

Fourth, why shame on me? I am only quoting from what either you call
yourself, or what at least one other NG reader called you.

Finally, and the real point, perhaps one may interpret the comma in the
that you do, but commas are notorious for misinterpretation. That is why
legal draughtsmen rarely insert commas.

The second sentence of the quoted paragraph of RFC1855, again reproduced
below, contains the real meat:

This will make sure readers understand when they start to read
your response.

Will all top posters please note, that this requirement is met by posting
below the quoted part. It certainly is not met by top posting.

In my view, a top poster is the internet equivalent to somebody who shouts
over the person speaking, a heckler.



Geoff

"Geoff" wrote in message
...
Geoff wrote in message
...

"Ryan Breai, village idiot" ranted in message
...

A condemnation, therefore, of the CBisation taking place...

Not only can the village idiot not spell, he cannot post properly.
From the relevant part of RFC 1885

- If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message or include just
enough text of the original to give a context. This will make
sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context
helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!


"Ryan Breai" wrote in news:3fc7840c_2@mk-nntp-
1.news.uk.worldonline.com:

The first thing I must say is....grow up, Geoff!

There is no call for you to resort to infantile outbursts,
such as your gratuitous use of "village idiot" below. You
are of the age when you should have left the school
playground well behind, and are giving a very poor example
for young noviciates of the art to follow.

Shame on you.

The crucial point in what you quote below is the comma
appearing in "top of the message, or include just" in the
second line. This shows quite clearly that two disparate
options are being discussed. EITHER summarise at the
top OR include enough text to give a context.

My top posting with quotation beneath satisfies the
second option.


Five points arise from your post:

Firstly, I "grew up" years back.

Secondly, I was using the term "The Village Idiot" as provided in the
newsgroup post header that I read. Given a reasonable newsreader, you
should be able to se this yourself but I reproduce it below for your
convenience:

"Ryan Breai, village idiot" ranted in message
...

Third: My comment on spelling: my copy of the O.E.D. does not recognise
"CBisation", nor does Websters - anyway, if it was of US origin, it would
have been spelt with a "z".

Fourth, why shame on me? I am only quoting from what either you call
yourself, or what at least one other NG reader called you.

Finally, and the real point, perhaps one may interpret the comma in the
that you do, but commas are notorious for misinterpretation. That is why
legal draughtsmen rarely insert commas.

The second sentence of the quoted paragraph of RFC1855, again reproduced
below, contains the real meat:

This will make sure readers understand when they start to read
your response.

Will all top posters please note, that this requirement is met by posting
below the quoted part. It certainly is not met by top posting.

In my view, a top poster is the internet equivalent to somebody who shouts
over the person speaking, a heckler.



Geoff

Come on Geoff, don't make him think for himself, he'll get a headache (or
dick ache).
--
;)
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.

1. You have misrepresented what I posted, and
therefore you are a _LIAR_. I did not post what you said
that I posted. I have endeavoured to recreate the correct
way in which things were posted, E&OE.

2. It was you who used the term, "village idiot" however
you wish to claim that you latterly quoted it. Shame on you.
Grow up - by your childish predisposition you demonstrate that
you did not, in fact, grow up years ago, as you claimed, but one
cannot expect any more from a demonstrable _LIAR_.

As I said, Grow up, Geoff.

3. Dictionaries are recorders of history and not prescribers
of knowledge. The word, "CBisation" now exists, you have
used it; you understand the meaning of it.

4. As to commas being open to misinterpretation, then clearly
you have fallen into such a trap, by misinterpreting what you
quoted as a proscription of top-posting.

5. "In my view, a top poster is the internet equivalent to somebody who
shouts
over the person speaking, a heckler."

More unnecessary gratuitous remarks. Shame on you, grow up, Geoff.

6." This will make sure readers understand when they start to read
your response."
Will all bottom posters please note, that this requirement is met by posting
the quoted part anywhere. Anybody who is following a thread will not want to
be forced
to plough through old material again. Anyone who has not been following the
thread is ill-advised to select a posting from the middle. However, if he
does,
the archival material, like all references in any decent publication, is
given
at the end.

Geoff wrote in message
...
"Ryan Breai" wrote in news:3fc7840c_2@mk-nntp-
1.news.uk.worldonline.com:
The first thing I must say is....grow up, Geoff!
There is no call for you to resort to infantile outbursts,
such as your gratuitous use of "village idiot" below. You
are of the age when you should have left the school
playground well behind, and are giving a very poor example
for young noviciates of the art to follow.
Shame on you.
The crucial point in what you quote below is the comma
appearing in "top of the message, or include just" in the
second line. This shows quite clearly that two disparate
options are being discussed. EITHER summarise at the
top OR include enough text to give a context.
My top posting with quotation beneath satisfies the
second option.
Geoff wrote in message
...
A condemnation, therefore, of the CBisation taking place...
Not only can the village idiot not spell, he cannot post properly.
From the relevant part of RFC 1885
- If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message or include just
enough text of the original to give a context. This will make
sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context
helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!

Five points arise from your post:

Firstly, I "grew up" years back.

Secondly, I was using the term "The Village Idiot" as provided in the
newsgroup post header that I read. Given a reasonable newsreader, you
should be able to se this yourself but I reproduce it below for your
convenience:

Third: My comment on spelling: my copy of the O.E.D. does not recognise
"CBisation", nor does Websters - anyway, if it was of US origin, it would
have been spelt with a "z".

Fourth, why shame on me? I am only quoting from what either you call
yourself, or what at least one other NG reader called you.

Finally, and the real point, perhaps one may interpret the comma in the
that you do, but commas are notorious for misinterpretation. That is why
legal draughtsmen rarely insert commas.

The second sentence of the quoted paragraph of RFC1855, again reproduced
below, contains the real meat:

This will make sure readers understand when they start to read
your response.
Will all top posters please note, that this requirement is met by posting
below the quoted part. It certainly is not met by top posting.

In my view, a top poster is the internet equivalent to somebody who shouts
over the person speaking, a heckler.

"Ryan Breai" wrote in message
...
1. You have misrepresented what I posted, and
therefore you are a _LIAR_. I did not post what you said
that I posted. I have endeavoured to recreate the correct
way in which things were posted, E&OE.

2. It was you who used the term, "village idiot" however
you wish to claim that you latterly quoted it. Shame on you.
Grow up - by your childish predisposition you demonstrate that
you did not, in fact, grow up years ago, as you claimed, but one
cannot expect any more from a demonstrable _LIAR_.

crap snipped

You're wasting your time, Geoff. This bloke is such a retard that he can't
even work out that the reason he can't see the original is because the
poster (me) is in his kill file. He won't see this post either, so if you
respond he'll probably accuse you of talking to yourself!
--
;)
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.

"Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI" wrote in
:

"Ryan Breai" wrote in message
...
1. You have misrepresented what I posted, and
therefore you are a _LIAR_. I did not post what you said
that I posted. I have endeavoured to recreate the correct
way in which things were posted, E&OE.

2. It was you who used the term, "village idiot" however
you wish to claim that you latterly quoted it. Shame on you.
Grow up - by your childish predisposition you demonstrate that
you did not, in fact, grow up years ago, as you claimed, but one
cannot expect any more from a demonstrable _LIAR_.

crap snipped

You're wasting your time, Geoff. This bloke is such a retard that he
can't even work out that the reason he can't see the original is
because the poster (me) is in his kill file. He won't see this post
either, so if you respond he'll probably accuse you of talking to
yourself!

At the risk of being accused of picking "easy targets", I am sure that
majority of the readers of uk.r.a must agree that it is fun.

As I have said in my last post, "the village idiot", matched to his
pseudonym, is a matter of record. I doubt that anybody else would admit to
that.


Geoff

Geoff wrote in message
...
"Ryan Breai" wrote in news:3fc7840c_2@mk-nntp-
1.news.uk.worldonline.com:
The first thing I must say is....grow up, Geoff!
There is no call for you to resort to infantile outbursts,
such as your gratuitous use of "village idiot" below. You
are of the age when you should have left the school
playground well behind, and are giving a very poor example
for young noviciates of the art to follow.
Shame on you.
The crucial point in what you quote below is the comma
appearing in "top of the message, or include just" in the
second line. This shows quite clearly that two disparate
options are being discussed. EITHER summarise at the
top OR include enough text to give a context.
My top posting with quotation beneath satisfies the
second option.
Geoff wrote in message
...
A condemnation, therefore, of the CBisation taking place...
Not only can the village idiot not spell, he cannot post properly.
From the relevant part of RFC 1885
- If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure
you
summarize the original at the top of the message or include
just enough text of the original to give a context. This will
make sure readers understand when they start to read your
response. Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by
distributing the postings from one host to another, it is
possible to see a response to a message before seeing the
original. Giving context helps everyone. But do not include
the entire original!

Five points arise from your post:

Firstly, I "grew up" years back.

Secondly, I was using the term "The Village Idiot" as provided in the
newsgroup post header that I read. Given a reasonable newsreader, you
should be able to se this yourself but I reproduce it below for your
convenience:

Third: My comment on spelling: my copy of the O.E.D. does not
recognise "CBisation", nor does Websters - anyway, if it was of US
origin, it would have been spelt with a "z".

Fourth, why shame on me? I am only quoting from what either you call
yourself, or what at least one other NG reader called you.

Finally, and the real point, perhaps one may interpret the comma in
the that you do, but commas are notorious for misinterpretation. That
is why legal draughtsmen rarely insert commas.

The second sentence of the quoted paragraph of RFC1855, again
reproduced below, contains the real meat:

This will make sure readers understand when they start to read
your response.
Will all top posters please note, that this requirement is met by
posting below the quoted part. It certainly is not met by top
posting.

In my view, a top poster is the internet equivalent to somebody who
shouts over the person speaking, a heckler.






"Ryan Breai" wrote in
:

1. You have misrepresented what I posted, and
therefore you are a _LIAR_. I did not post what you said
that I posted. I have endeavoured to recreate the correct
way in which things were posted, E&OE.

2. It was you who used the term, "village idiot" however
you wish to claim that you latterly quoted it. Shame on you.
Grow up - by your childish predisposition you demonstrate that
you did not, in fact, grow up years ago, as you claimed, but one
cannot expect any more from a demonstrable _LIAR_.

As I said, Grow up, Geoff.

3. Dictionaries are recorders of history and not prescribers
of knowledge. The word, "CBisation" now exists, you have
used it; you understand the meaning of it.

4. As to commas being open to misinterpretation, then clearly
you have fallen into such a trap, by misinterpreting what you
quoted as a proscription of top-posting.

5. "In my view, a top poster is the internet equivalent to somebody
who shouts
over the person speaking, a heckler."

More unnecessary gratuitous remarks. Shame on you, grow up, Geoff.

6." This will make sure readers understand when they start to read
your response."
Will all bottom posters please note, that this requirement is met by
posting the quoted part anywhere. Anybody who is following a thread
will not want to be forced
to plough through old material again. Anyone who has not been
following the thread is ill-advised to select a posting from the
middle. However, if he does,
the archival material, like all references in any decent publication,
is given
at the end.

Aw, who is now getting uppity, have I hit on the truth?

Lets examine your points in order:

1 No I have not misrepresented what you have said. The only change that I
have made in your news post is in the posting order, I have "de top posted
them", placing the contributions in chronological order, which, like the
rest, is a matter of record. My local news server retains posts for a
period of time, unadulterated with the exception of adding the R-lines, as
do news servers all over the world. I do not lie, the facts speak for
themselves.

2 As I said, the term "Village Idiot" appears alongside your pseudonym in
an internet address as already described. If you care to check, the net
time of this predates my post by some hours. Again, a matter of record, I
do not lie, the facts speak for themselves.

3 The definition of a dictionary:

A book dealing with the individual words of a language (or certain
specified classes of them), so as to set forth their orthography,
pronunciation, signification, and use, their synonyms, derivation,
and history, or at least some of these facts. (O.E.D.)

History in this context relates to the historic derivation of the word. Yet
again a matter of record, again the facts speak for themselves.

4 As nearly any editor, lawyer or student of the English language will
know, the comma in the RFC is redundant. However, I do not need to debate
the semantics with you, you know that. You were seeking to place your own
errant construction on the RFC.

5 We have been here before. Again you wish to get your point over by
putting it in front of the views of others. This is typical of a bigot.

6 Even to one as bigotted as you, it is sensible to read the news post in
some sensible order. If you need to understand the term "bigotted", here it
is, courtesy of the O.E.D.:

Obstinately and blindly attached to some creed, opinion, or party;
unreasonably devoted to a system or party, and intolerant towards
others.

I think this is a nice summation of your views.


Need I say more - oh yes, I "de top posted" again.

Geoff

No. You wish, but you seem to want to come across as a silly
child, taking your current postings together with your contributions in
recent weeks.

Geoff wrote in message
...
Aw, who is now getting uppity, have I hit on the truth?

Yes. You did misrepresent what I said. I am a proponent of
top-posting, and by reorganising it to appear that I did not
post in a top-posting manner. you are a _LIAR_ to claim that
what you presented was what I posted.

By the same token, your last sentence below, " I do not lie,
the facts speak for themselves." by mere reorganisation
reads, " I lie, do not the facts speak for themselves."

Geoff wrote in message
...
1 No I have not misrepresented what you have said. The only change that I
have made in your news post is in the posting order, I have "de top posted
them", placing the contributions in chronological order, which, like the
rest, is a matter of record. My local news server retains posts for a
period of time, unadulterated with the exception of adding the R-lines, as
do news servers all over the world. I do not lie, the facts speak for
themselves.