Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for the
99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric interweb
when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness

"common sense"  wrote in message 
news:SCJUh.4086$kb4.790@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for 
> the
> 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric interweb
> when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness
>
>

I'll see what I can do for you.

Mike


-- 
................................................................
The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association.
'THE' Association if you served in the Electrical Branch of the Royal Navy
www.rneba.org.uk

common sense (microsoft@kqwertt.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying : 

> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier
> for the 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the
> electric interweb when it became fashionable rather than a sign of
> NERDishness 

Eat shit, because one hundred trillion flies can't be wrong.

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:04:02 +0000, common sense wrote:

> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for
> the 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric
> interweb when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness

Well, I'm a nerdy Linux user who will continue to bottom post.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

Adrain wrote:
> common sense (microsoft@kqwertt.com) gurgled happily, sounding much
> like they were saying :
>
>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier
>> for the 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the
>> electric interweb when it became fashionable rather than a sign of
>> NERDishness
>
> Eat shit, because one hundred trillion flies can't be wrong.

Its a joke is it?

 ADrain and sh1t?

On 2007-04-16, common sense  wrote:
> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for the
> 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric interweb
> when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness

         \|||/       
         (o o)       
,----ooO--(_)-------.
| Please            |
|   don't feed the  |
|     TROLL's !     |
'--------------Ooo--'
        |__|__|      
         || ||       
        ooO Ooo      



-- 
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those
who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this
            or that problem will never be solved by science.
            [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

On 2007-04-16, Tommy  wrote:
> Adrain wrote:
>> common sense (microsoft@kqwertt.com) gurgled happily, sounding much
>> like they were saying :
>>
>>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier
>>> for the 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the
>>> electric interweb when it became fashionable rather than a sign of
>>> NERDishness
>>
>> Eat shit, because one hundred trillion flies can't be wrong.
>
> Its a joke is it?

No.

Top posting because that's where that brain damaged piece of crap Outlook
Express leaves the cursor is like shitting your pants because that's
where your arsehole is.

-- 
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those
who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this
            or that problem will never be solved by science.
            [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

common sense  typed:
> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for
> the
> 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric interweb
> when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness

OK

....... oh, er sorry.

What I meant to say was ...

Fuck off.  :)

-- 
Dog Poop

Stand by me,

On 2007-04-16, Chris Hills  wrote:
> Huge wrote:
>>          \|||/       
>>          (o o)       
>> ,----ooO--(_)-------.
>> | Please            |
>> |   don't feed the  |
>> |     TROLL's !     |
>> '--------------Ooo--'
>>         |__|__|      
>>          || ||       
>>         ooO Ooo      
>
> Please do not cross-post to this group.
>
> Please use correct grammar; the plural of "troll" is "trolls" and not
> "troll's".

Under normal circumstances, I might have some faint sympathy with you
but since you're a patronising arrogant twat who is incapable of
recognising a quote (Hint: I didn't make the trolls sign), edits
the Newgsroups line without saying so (itself considered rude) and
doesn't say which group he is referring to, you can go fuck yourself.

-- 
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those
who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this
            or that problem will never be solved by science.
            [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

Huge wrote:
> On 2007-04-16, Tommy  wrote:
>> Adrain wrote:
>>> common sense (microsoft@kqwertt.com) gurgled happily, sounding much
>>> like they were saying :
>>>
>>>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier
>>>> for the 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the
>>>> electric interweb when it became fashionable rather than a sign of
>>>> NERDishness
>>>
>>> Eat shit, because one hundred trillion flies can't be wrong.
>>
>> Its a joke is it?
>
> No.
>
> Top posting because that's where that brain damaged piece of crap
> Outlook Express leaves the cursor is like shitting your pants because
> that's where your arsehole is.

If you use quotefix most of your problems with OE will stop.

http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/


-- 
JFG

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:29:00 +0100, JFGrieve wrote:

<snip>

> If you use quotefix most of your problems with OE will stop.
> 
> http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

...... but why should one need a third party bit of software to use
something with a problem that M$ have known about for years but won't fix
themselves?

-- 
the dot wanderer at tesco dot net

On Apr 16, 4:42 pm, The Wanderer  wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:29:00 +0100, JFGrieve wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > If you use quotefix most of your problems with OE will stop.
>
> >http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
>
> ..... but why should one need a third party bit of software to use
> something with a problem that M$ have known about for years but won't fix
> themselves?
>
> --
> the dot wanderer at tesco dot net

More to the point is why not use it? It works, it's free & it takes
seconds to install.
Oh & JF likes it.

WS

The Wanderer wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:29:00 +0100, JFGrieve wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> If you use quotefix most of your problems with OE will stop.
>>
>> http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
>
> ..... but why should one need a third party bit of software to use
> something with a problem that M$ have known about for years but won't
> fix themselves?

You've answered your own question: because M$ have known about it for years 
but won't fix it themselves :-)
-- 
John Briggs

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:42:46 +0100, The Wanderer 
wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:29:00 +0100, JFGrieve wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> If you use quotefix most of your problems with OE will stop.
>> 
>> http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
>
>..... but why should one need a third party bit of software to use
>something with a problem that M$ have known about for years but won't fix
>themselves?

What does Microsoft do different that other usenet programs don't? And
if they've not 'fixed' it in years, I'd conclude that they don't
consider it to be wrong in the first place.

On 16 Apr 2007 13:12:24 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

>On 2007-04-16, Chris Hills  wrote:
>> Huge wrote:
>>>          \|||/       
>>>          (o o)       
>>> ,----ooO--(_)-------.
>>> | Please            |
>>> |   don't feed the  |
>>> |     TROLL's !     |
>>> '--------------Ooo--'
>>>         |__|__|      
>>>          || ||       
>>>         ooO Ooo      
>>
>> Please do not cross-post to this group.
>>
>> Please use correct grammar; the plural of "troll" is "trolls" and not
>> "troll's".
>
>Under normal circumstances, I might have some faint sympathy with you
>but since you're a patronising arrogant twat who is incapable of
>recognising a quote (Hint: I didn't make the trolls sign)

There's no way of knowing that from what you posted. It isn't
presented as a quote. Personally, I'd have noticed it and edited it
myself...

Ed Chilada wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:42:46 +0100, The Wanderer 
> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:29:00 +0100, JFGrieve wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> If you use quotefix most of your problems with OE will stop.
>>>
>>> http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
>> ..... but why should one need a third party bit of software to use
>> something with a problem that M$ have known about for years but won't fix
>> themselves?
> 
> What does Microsoft do different that other usenet programs don't? And
> if they've not 'fixed' it in years, I'd conclude that they don't
> consider it to be wrong in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
Correct me if I'm wrong, I think MS recommend OE Quotefix as a download 
from their site..

Just use Thunderbird or SeaMonkey.

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 19:24:12 +0100, BrianE 
wrote:

>Ed Chilada wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:42:46 +0100, The Wanderer 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:29:00 +0100, JFGrieve wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> If you use quotefix most of your problems with OE will stop.
>>>>
>>>> http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
>>> ..... but why should one need a third party bit of software to use
>>> something with a problem that M$ have known about for years but won't fix
>>> themselves?
>> 
>> What does Microsoft do different that other usenet programs don't? And
>> if they've not 'fixed' it in years, I'd conclude that they don't
>> consider it to be wrong in the first place.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>Correct me if I'm wrong, I think MS recommend OE Quotefix as a download 
>from their site..

Difficult to prove you wrong, because it's difficult to prove a
negative! Of course, there's a world of difference between it being a
download on the MS website, and someone from Microsoft suggesting it
in their blog.



>Just use Thunderbird or SeaMonkey.

Or Agent!

"common sense"  wrote in message 
news:SCJUh.4086$kb4.790@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for 
> the
> 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric interweb
> when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness
>

Why would you want to do that?

What sense does it make to have a reply in front of the question???

"Steve"  wrote in message 
news:TUQUh.968$537.80@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>
> "common sense"  wrote in message 
> news:SCJUh.4086$kb4.790@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for 
>> the
>> 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric 
>> interweb
>> when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness
>>
>
> Why would you want to do that?
>
> What sense does it make to have a reply in front of the question???

None at all!


>
>
>
>

"common sense"  wrote in message 
news:SCJUh.4086$kb4.790@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for 
> the
> 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric interweb
> when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness

No, becasue it does not make sense to have to read the asnwer to a query 
before you read the query!

A really stupid suggestion.

I use Outlok Express and with that there is no trouble at all in putting 
your comment below that of the original poster.

I suspect that a large number of other net readers will allow you to do 
that, it's just laziness on the part of posters which shows them always to 
use top posting to reply to articles.

So, don't be so bloody lazy, learn how to move the cursor down the page to 
the right place!

>
>

Regards :-)

Whatever you feel the Top-Poster is quite obviously one of these.
"A complete moron". I do not want to denigrate any human being.
I am not interested in throwing insults or calling someone else
languages can suggest one that is? Anyway I can't think of one now.
is written from bottom to top.  I wonder if any resident expert on world
and Hebrew are written right to left IIRC but I don't think that either
read from left to right and top to bottom.  I realise that Chinese
Top-Posting. Most people in English speaking news groups will
Presumably this will make perfect sense  to anyone who prefers

I would just like to comment:

Alan Holmes wrote:
> "common sense"  wrote in message 
> news:SCJUh.4086$kb4.790@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for 
>> the
>> 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric interweb
>> when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness
> 
> No, becasue it does not make sense to have to read the asnwer to a query 
> before you read the query!
> 
> A really stupid suggestion.
> 
> I use Outlok Express and with that there is no trouble at all in putting 
> your comment below that of the original poster.

Rob. (occasionallychecked@hotmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying : 

> 
> Regards :-)
> 
> Whatever you feel the Top-Poster is quite obviously one of these.
> "A complete moron".

(Top-posed, of course)

> I would just like to comment:

So would I. You're a fuckwit. An illiterate fuckwit.

Ed Chilada wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 19:24:12 +0100, BrianE 
> wrote:
> 
>> Ed Chilada wrote:
>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:42:46 +0100, The Wanderer 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:29:00 +0100, JFGrieve wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> If you use quotefix most of your problems with OE will stop.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
>>>> ..... but why should one need a third party bit of software to use
>>>> something with a problem that M$ have known about for years but won't fix
>>>> themselves?
>>> What does Microsoft do different that other usenet programs don't? And
>>> if they've not 'fixed' it in years, I'd conclude that they don't
>>> consider it to be wrong in the first place.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, I think MS recommend OE Quotefix as a download 
>>from their site..
> 
> Difficult to prove you wrong, because it's difficult to prove a
> negative! Of course, there's a world of difference between it being a
> download on the MS website, and someone from Microsoft suggesting it
> in their blog.
> 
> 
> 
>> Just use Thunderbird or SeaMonkey.
> 
> Or Agent!
Well, anyone using Outlook Express has bigger problems than worrying 
about top posting!

Hi Adrian,

Rob's post made sense to me (which doesn't mean I agree with him).
If you had read it from bottom to top it might have made sense to you.

To call him "an illiterate fuckwit" is silly, especially when you wrote "Top-posed, of course".
I assume you meant "Top-posted, of course", not a culpable spelling error but still an error.

And you should note that it was *not* a top post in the usual sense of that (carping) criticism.

Take care,
Phil.
-- 
"Time wounds all heels."

http://uk.geocities.com/philadkinsp/diabetes.html
http://uk.geocities.com/philadkinsp/index.html

"Phil Aypee" <phil.see.website@uk.invalid> wrote in message 
news:46247b4c$0$9096$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
> Hi Adrian,
>
> Rob's post made sense to me (which doesn't mean I agree with him).
> If you had read it from bottom to top it might have made sense to you.
>
> To call him "an illiterate fuckwit" is silly, especially when you wrote 
> "Top-posed, of course".
> I assume you meant "Top-posted, of course", not a culpable spelling error 
> but still an error.
>
> And you should note that it was *not* a top post in the usual sense of 
> that (carping) criticism.
>

Quite. It's not often that Adrian drops himself so spectacularly in the 
shit, which makes it all the more enjoyable when he does. (Tee hee)

JFGrieve wrote:
> Huge wrote:
>> On 2007-04-16, Tommy  wrote:
>>> Adrain wrote:
>>>> common sense (microsoft@kqwertt.com) gurgled happily, sounding much
>>>> like they were saying :
>>>>
>>>>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier
>>>>> for the 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the
>>>>> electric interweb when it became fashionable rather than a sign of
>>>>> NERDishness
>>>> Eat shit, because one hundred trillion flies can't be wrong.
>>> Its a joke is it?
>> No.
>>
>> Top posting because that's where that brain damaged piece of crap
>> Outlook Express leaves the cursor is like shitting your pants because
>> that's where your arsehole is.
> 
> If you use quotefix most of your problems with OE will stop.
> 
> http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

And causes new ones

-- 
Abo
BATracer: Browser Based Racing Simulation:
http://batracer.com/-1FrontPage.htm?6q0

Ed Chilada wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:42:46 +0100, The Wanderer 
> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:29:00 +0100, JFGrieve wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> If you use quotefix most of your problems with OE will stop.
>>>
>>> http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
>> ..... but why should one need a third party bit of software to use
>> something with a problem that M$ have known about for years but won't fix
>> themselves?
> 
> What does Microsoft do different that other usenet programs don't? And
> if they've not 'fixed' it in years, I'd conclude that they don't
> consider it to be wrong in the first place.

Just because Microsoft think something doesn't make it the truth

-- 
Abo
BATracer: Browser Based Racing Simulation:
http://batracer.com/-1FrontPage.htm?6q0

Brimstone (brimstone@hotmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying : 

> Quite. It's not often that Adrian drops himself so spectacularly in
> the shit, which makes it all the more enjoyable when he does. (Tee
> hee) 

But you've got to admit, when I do, I'll cheerfully stick my hand up and 
laugh at myself...

Phil Aypee (phil.see.website@uk.invalid) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying : 

> Rob's post made sense to me (which doesn't mean I agree with him).
> If you had read it from bottom to top it might have made sense to you.

Indeed it would...

> To call him "an illiterate fuckwit" is silly, especially when you
> wrote "Top-posed, of course". I assume you meant "Top-posted, of
> course", not a culpable spelling error but still an error. 
> 
> And you should note that it was *not* a top post in the usual sense of
> that (carping) criticism. 
> 
> Take care,
> Phil.

There is only thing I can say.

"D'oh".

I are an illiterate fuckwit.

Jim wrote:
> Ed Chilada wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 19:24:12 +0100, BrianE 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ed Chilada wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:42:46 +0100, The Wanderer 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:29:00 +0100, JFGrieve wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you use quotefix most of your problems with OE will stop.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
>>>>> ..... but why should one need a third party bit of software to use
>>>>> something with a problem that M$ have known about for years but
>>>>> won't fix themselves?
>>>> What does Microsoft do different that other usenet programs don't?
>>>> And if they've not 'fixed' it in years, I'd conclude that they
>>>> don't consider it to be wrong in the first place.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, I think MS recommend OE Quotefix as a
>>> download from their site..
>>
>> Difficult to prove you wrong, because it's difficult to prove a
>> negative! Of course, there's a world of difference between it being a
>> download on the MS website, and someone from Microsoft suggesting it
>> in their blog.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Just use Thunderbird or SeaMonkey.
>>
>> Or Agent!
> Well, anyone using Outlook Express has bigger problems than worrying
> about top posting!

You might be right, but can you tell us what those problems are?


-- 
JFG

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:04:02 GMT, common sense wrote:

> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for the
> 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric interweb
> when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness

OK! Will do. But not just yet.
-- 
He He He <smirk> Tee Hee Hee
On this the 17/04/2007 17:30:09 AD in the final year of Blairs Bullshit.

Adrian wrote:
> Brimstone (brimstone@hotmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying : 
> 
>> Quite. It's not often that Adrian drops himself so spectacularly in
>> the shit, which makes it all the more enjoyable when he does. (Tee
>> hee) 
> 
> But you've got to admit, when I do, I'll cheerfully stick my hand up and 
> laugh at myself...

No hard feelings then?

"Hazel"  wrote in message 
news:j4ekz3n5pnid.1dksukkvbu4ge.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:04:02 GMT, common sense wrote:
>
>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for 
>> the
>> 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric 
>> interweb
>> when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness
>
> OK! Will do. But not just yet.

Please, please, do not start top posting, just do things sensibly and add 
comments AFTER the text you are commenting on, if you top post, no one has 
any idea what the hell you are commenting on.

Alan

In message <ZG7Vh.4208$kb4.3329@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>, Alan Holmes 
 writes
>
>"Hazel"  wrote in message
>news:j4ekz3n5pnid.1dksukkvbu4ge.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:04:02 GMT, common sense wrote:
>>
>>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for
>>> the
>>> 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric
>>> interweb
>>> when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness
>>
>> OK! Will do. But not just yet.
>
>Please, please, do not start top posting, just do things sensibly and add
>comments AFTER the text you are commenting on, if you top post, no one has
>any idea what the hell you are commenting on.
>
>Alan
>
>
With some people, no one has any idea what the hell they are commenting 
on when they bottom post.
-- 
Jane Sullivan

Jane Sullivan wrote:
> In message <ZG7Vh.4208$kb4.3329@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>, Alan Holmes

>>
>>Please, please, do not start top posting, just do things sensibly and
>>add comments AFTER the text you are commenting on, if you top post,
>>no one has any idea what the hell you are commenting on.
>>
>>Alan
>>
>>
> With some people, no one has any idea what the hell they are
> commenting on when they bottom post.

With *some* people, where they post is fairly irrelevant to anybody else 
understanding it...

common sense wrote:
> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for the
> 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric interweb
> when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness

Sorry, 0.01% Linux user here.

-- 
John Wright

"Jane Sullivan"  wrote in message 
news:2$IRoE5pKRJGFAPb@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk...
> In message <ZG7Vh.4208$kb4.3329@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>, Alan Holmes 
>  writes
>>
>>"Hazel"  wrote in message
>>news:j4ekz3n5pnid.1dksukkvbu4ge.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:04:02 GMT, common sense wrote:
>>>
>>>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for
>>>> the
>>>> 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric
>>>> interweb
>>>> when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness
>>>
>>> OK! Will do. But not just yet.
>>
>>Please, please, do not start top posting, just do things sensibly and add
>>comments AFTER the text you are commenting on, if you top post, no one has
>>any idea what the hell you are commenting on.
>>
>>Alan
>>
>>
> With some people, no one has any idea what the hell they are commenting on 
> when they bottom post.

That may be because they do not post comments immediately below the text 
they are commenting on.

> -- 
> Jane Sullivan

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:43:21 GMT, Alan Holmes wrote:

> "Hazel"  wrote in message 
> news:j4ekz3n5pnid.1dksukkvbu4ge.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:04:02 GMT, common sense wrote:
>>
>>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for 
>>> the
>>> 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric 
>>> interweb
>>> when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness
>>
>> OK! Will do. But not just yet.
> 
> Please, please, do not start top posting, just do things sensibly and add 
> comments AFTER the text you are commenting on, if you top post, no one has 
> any idea what the hell you are commenting on.
> 
> Alan

That adds to the mystery and increases the excitement of
working out what the original post was all about. It can
give hours of enjoyment.

Hazel.

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:35:14 GMT, Alan Holmes wrote:

> "Jane Sullivan"  wrote in message 
> news:2$IRoE5pKRJGFAPb@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <ZG7Vh.4208$kb4.3329@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>, Alan Holmes 
>>  writes
>>>
>>>"Hazel"  wrote in message
>>>news:j4ekz3n5pnid.1dksukkvbu4ge.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:04:02 GMT, common sense wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for
>>>>> the
>>>>> 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric
>>>>> interweb
>>>>> when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness
>>>>
>>>> OK! Will do. But not just yet.
>>>
>>>Please, please, do not start top posting, just do things sensibly and add
>>>comments AFTER the text you are commenting on, if you top post, no one has
>>>any idea what the hell you are commenting on.
>>>
>>>Alan
>>>
>>>
>> With some people, no one has any idea what the hell they are commenting on 
>> when they bottom post.
> 
> That may be because they do not post comments immediately below the text 
> they are commenting on.
> 
>> -- 
>> Jane Sullivan

Sometimes it's *garbage in----garbage out*.
No matter where it is inserted.

Hazel.

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:14:51 GMT, Abo <no@spam.thanks> wrote:

>Ed Chilada wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:42:46 +0100, The Wanderer 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:29:00 +0100, JFGrieve wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> If you use quotefix most of your problems with OE will stop.
>>>>
>>>> http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
>>> ..... but why should one need a third party bit of software to use
>>> something with a problem that M$ have known about for years but won't fix
>>> themselves?
>> 
>> What does Microsoft do different that other usenet programs don't? And
>> if they've not 'fixed' it in years, I'd conclude that they don't
>> consider it to be wrong in the first place.
>
>Just because Microsoft think something doesn't make it the truth

Sure. And just because loads of people don't like the way Microsoft
have implemented something, doesn't make it wrong and doesn't oblige
Microsoft to change anything.

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:43:21 GMT, "Alan Holmes"
 wrote:

>
>"Hazel"  wrote in message 
>news:j4ekz3n5pnid.1dksukkvbu4ge.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:04:02 GMT, common sense wrote:
>>
>>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for 
>>> the
>>> 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric 
>>> interweb
>>> when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness
>>
>> OK! Will do. But not just yet.
>
>Please, please, do not start top posting, just do things sensibly and add 
>comments AFTER the text you are commenting on, if you top post, no one has 
>any idea what the hell you are commenting on.

Have you ever wondered why *loads* of people use top posting all the
time and don't seem to have a problem with it?

Ed Chilada wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:43:21 GMT, "Alan Holmes"
>  wrote:
> 
>> "Hazel"  wrote in message 
>> news:j4ekz3n5pnid.1dksukkvbu4ge.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:04:02 GMT, common sense wrote:
>>>
>>>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for 
>>>> the
>>>> 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric 
>>>> interweb
>>>> when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness
>>> OK! Will do. But not just yet.
>> Please, please, do not start top posting, just do things sensibly and add 
>> comments AFTER the text you are commenting on, if you top post, no one has 
>> any idea what the hell you are commenting on.
> 
> Have you ever wondered why *loads* of people use top posting all the
> time and don't seem to have a problem with it?
> 

Microsoft + Lazyness

Ed Chilada wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:14:51 GMT, Abo <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
> 
>> Ed Chilada wrote:
>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:42:46 +0100, The Wanderer 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:29:00 +0100, JFGrieve wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> If you use quotefix most of your problems with OE will stop.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
>>>> ..... but why should one need a third party bit of software to use
>>>> something with a problem that M$ have known about for years but won't fix
>>>> themselves?
>>> What does Microsoft do different that other usenet programs don't? And
>>> if they've not 'fixed' it in years, I'd conclude that they don't
>>> consider it to be wrong in the first place.
>> Just because Microsoft think something doesn't make it the truth
> 
> Sure. And just because loads of people don't like the way Microsoft
> have implemented something, doesn't make it wrong and doesn't oblige
> Microsoft to change anything.
> 
One is not obliged to use micro$oft but it's easier if you don't/can't 
think.

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 07:49:20 GMT, Ed Chilada wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:43:21 GMT, "Alan Holmes"
>  wrote:
> 
>>
>>"Hazel"  wrote in message 
>>news:j4ekz3n5pnid.1dksukkvbu4ge.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:04:02 GMT, common sense wrote:
>>>
>>>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for 
>>>> the
>>>> 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric 
>>>> interweb
>>>> when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness
>>>
>>> OK! Will do. But not just yet.
>>
>>Please, please, do not start top posting, just do things sensibly and add 
>>comments AFTER the text you are commenting on, if you top post, no one has 
>>any idea what the hell you are commenting on.
> 
> Have you ever wondered why *loads* of people use top posting all the
> time and don't seem to have a problem with it?

They belong to the Usenet Lodge of Operative Trolls??
Just a wild guess!

Rose.

Rob. (occasionallychecked@hotmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying : 

>>> Quite. It's not often that Adrian drops himself so spectacularly in
>>> the shit, which makes it all the more enjoyable when he does. (Tee
>>> hee) 

>> But you've got to admit, when I do, I'll cheerfully stick my hand up
>> and laugh at myself...

> No hard feelings then?

Fuck, no. Life's too short to take Usenet seriously.

"Adrian"  wrote in message 
news:Xns99167C22577F4adrianachapmanfreeis@204.153.245.131...
> Rob. (occasionallychecked@hotmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much
> like they were saying :
>
>>>> Quite. It's not often that Adrian drops himself so spectacularly in
>>>> the shit, which makes it all the more enjoyable when he does. (Tee
>>>> hee)
>
>>> But you've got to admit, when I do, I'll cheerfully stick my hand up
>>> and laugh at myself...
>
>> No hard feelings then?
>
> Fuck, no. Life's too short to take Usenet seriously.

Not that there's much option anyway.

"Hazel"  wrote in message 
news:1kt312i2b2pwy$.15cv1fujkesxd.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:35:14 GMT, Alan Holmes wrote:
>
>> "Jane Sullivan"  wrote in message
>> news:2$IRoE5pKRJGFAPb@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message <ZG7Vh.4208$kb4.3329@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>, Alan Holmes
>>>  writes
>>>>
>>>>"Hazel"  wrote in message
>>>>news:j4ekz3n5pnid.1dksukkvbu4ge.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:04:02 GMT, common sense wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier 
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric
>>>>>> interweb
>>>>>> when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness
>>>>>
>>>>> OK! Will do. But not just yet.
>>>>
>>>>Please, please, do not start top posting, just do things sensibly and 
>>>>add
>>>>comments AFTER the text you are commenting on, if you top post, no one 
>>>>has
>>>>any idea what the hell you are commenting on.
>>>>
>>>>Alan
>>>>
>>>>
>>> With some people, no one has any idea what the hell they are commenting 
>>> on
>>> when they bottom post.
>>
>> That may be because they do not post comments immediately below the text
>> they are commenting on.
>>
>>> -- 
>>> Jane Sullivan
>
> Sometimes it's *garbage in----garbage out*.
> No matter where it is inserted.

How very true!


>
> Hazel.

Rose wrote:
 "Hazel"  wrote in message
>>> news:j4ekz3n5pnid.1dksukkvbu4ge.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:04:02 GMT, common sense wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much
>>>>> easier for the
>>>>> 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric
>>>>> interweb
>>>>> when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness

Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that the newest  mass medium is
so full of old fashioned class ridden netiketers.
Top Posting is one thing but I've seen people slagged off for having Tesco
as an ISP and told they should stay away (but not in those 4 letter words )
If car etiquette had not changed we'd have people with a red flag and
drivers tooting  (to let the other driver know!) when they approach a corner

NM wrote:
>> Have you ever wondered why *loads* of people use top posting all the
>> time and don't seem to have a problem with it?
>>
>
> Microsoft + Lazyness

You're correct about Microsoft - I have NEVER seen a PC for sale that
doesn't have Microsoft so why do we have to go the tiny minority of Apple
(?) way of doing thinks

Tommy (Thomast@kqwerttie.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were 
saying :

> You're correct about Microsoft - I have NEVER seen a PC for sale that
> doesn't have Microsoft so why do we have to go the tiny minority of Apple
> (?) way of doing thinks

Microsoft OS does not necessarily mean Microsoft client apps in use.

You may also like to to note that MacOS is not the only alternative to 
Windows, and that it's really not that difficult to buy a PC without an OS.

"Adrian"  wrote in message 
news:Xns991688A40B8EBadrianachapmanfreeis@204.153.245.131...
> Tommy (Thomast@kqwerttie.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they 
> were
> saying :
>
>> You're correct about Microsoft - I have NEVER seen a PC for sale that
>> doesn't have Microsoft so why do we have to go the tiny minority of Apple
>> (?) way of doing thinks
>
> Microsoft OS does not necessarily mean Microsoft client apps in use.
>
> You may also like to to note that MacOS is not the only alternative to
> Windows, and that it's really not that difficult to buy a PC without an 
> OS.

But I never see anything else in PC World or Currys.

X-No-Archive: yes

In message <QSnVh.1158$mk4.462@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>, Tommy 
 writes
>Rose wrote:
> "Hazel"  wrote in message
>>>> news:j4ekz3n5pnid.1dksukkvbu4ge.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:04:02 GMT, common sense wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much
>>>>>> easier for the
>>>>>> 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric
>>>>>> interweb
>>>>>> when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness
>
>Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that the newest  mass medium is
>so full of old fashioned class ridden netiketers.
>Top Posting is one thing but I've seen people slagged off for having Tesco
>as an ISP and told they should stay away (but not in those 4 letter words )
>If car etiquette had not changed we'd have people with a red flag and
>drivers tooting  (to let the other driver know!) when they approach a corner

There's nothing old-fashioned about communication conventions otherwise 
written communications would be impossible. The incredibly easy to 
follow RFC guidelines on posting to the Usenet have been evolved over 
three decades or more to enable people all over the world to communicate 
freely on about 100,000 subjects. I don't know how many members of the 
Usenet community there are now world wide. Usenet is a remarkable 
achievement and warrants our respect, even more so now that it's under 
threat.

The machinery for changing those conventions favoured by "old fashioned 
class ridden netiketers" as you so sneeringly called them, does exist as 
a quick glance through the RFCs will show. There's even a newsgroup in 
the Anarchists Liars and Terrorists (alt) hierarchy for those who, 
perhaps due to mental deficiencies, are unable to use chronological 
posting. It's alt.top-posting.fuckwits. Anyone can join. Try it at home.

-- 
James Follett. Novelist (Callsign G1LXP)
http://www.jamesfollett.dswilliams.co.uk and http://www.marjacq.com

maybe If you didn't get angry about such important little things then you
might not have been stroked?
jf wrote:
>
> In message <QSnVh.1158$mk4.462@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>, Tommy
>  writes
>> Rose wrote:
>> "Hazel"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:j4ekz3n5pnid.1dksukkvbu4ge.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:04:02 GMT, common sense wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much
>>>>>>> easier for the
>>>>>>> 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the
>>>>>>> electric interweb
>>>>>>> when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness
>>
>> Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that the newest  mass
>> medium is so full of old fashioned class ridden netiketers.
>> Top Posting is one thing but I've seen people slagged off for having
>> Tesco as an ISP and told they should stay away (but not in those 4
>> letter words ) If car etiquette had not changed we'd have people
>> with a red flag and drivers tooting  (to let the other driver know!)
>> when they approach a corner
>
> There's nothing old-fashioned about communication conventions
> otherwise written communications would be impossible. The incredibly
> easy to follow RFC guidelines on posting to the Usenet have been
> evolved over three decades or more to enable people all over the
> world to communicate freely on about 100,000 subjects. I don't know
> how many members of the Usenet community there are now world wide.
> Usenet is a remarkable achievement and warrants our respect, even
> more so now that it's under threat.
>
> The machinery for changing those conventions favoured by "old
> fashioned class ridden netiketers" as you so sneeringly called them,
> does exist as a quick glance through the RFCs will show. There's even
> a newsgroup in the Anarchists Liars and Terrorists (alt) hierarchy
> for those who, perhaps due to mental deficiencies, are unable to use
> chronological posting. It's alt.top-posting.fuckwits. Anyone can
> join. Try it at home.

Brimstone wrote:

> 
> "Adrian"  wrote in message
> news:Xns991688A40B8EBadrianachapmanfreeis@204.153.245.131...
>> Tommy (Thomast@kqwerttie.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>> were
>> saying :
>>
>>> You're correct about Microsoft - I have NEVER seen a PC for sale that
>>> doesn't have Microsoft so why do we have to go the tiny minority of
>>> Apple (?) way of doing thinks
>>
>> Microsoft OS does not necessarily mean Microsoft client apps in use.
>>
>> You may also like to to note that MacOS is not the only alternative to
>> Windows, and that it's really not that difficult to buy a PC without an
>> OS.
> 
> But I never see anything else in PC World or Currys.

But that's PC World and Currys for you. You don't buy stuff there, surely..?

Adrian wrote:
> Tommy (Thomast@kqwerttie.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were 
> saying :
> 
>> You're correct about Microsoft - I have NEVER seen a PC for sale that
>> doesn't have Microsoft so why do we have to go the tiny minority of Apple
>> (?) way of doing thinks
> 
> Microsoft OS does not necessarily mean Microsoft client apps in use.
> 
> You may also like to to note that MacOS is not the only alternative to 
> Windows, and that it's really not that difficult to buy a PC without an OS.

But it is one of the better alternatives

Brimstone (brimstone@hotmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying : 

>>> You're correct about Microsoft - I have NEVER seen a PC for sale
>>> that doesn't have Microsoft so why do we have to go the tiny
>>> minority of Apple (?) way of doing thinks

>> Microsoft OS does not necessarily mean Microsoft client apps in use.
>>
>> You may also like to to note that MacOS is not the only alternative
>> to Windows, and that it's really not that difficult to buy a PC
>> without an OS.

> But I never see anything else in PC World or Currys. 

No, I never see anything but overpriced shit in there, either.

"Hazel"  wrote in message 
news:15ni7ewllpijf.1dhsh97d81gjr$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:43:21 GMT, Alan Holmes wrote:
>
>> "Hazel"  wrote in message
>> news:j4ekz3n5pnid.1dksukkvbu4ge.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:04:02 GMT, common sense wrote:
>>>
>>>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for
>>>> the
>>>> 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric
>>>> interweb
>>>> when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness
>>>
>>> OK! Will do. But not just yet.
>>
>> Please, please, do not start top posting, just do things sensibly and add
>> comments AFTER the text you are commenting on, if you top post, no one 
>> has
>> any idea what the hell you are commenting on.
>>
>> Alan
>
> That adds to the mystery and increases the excitement of
> working out what the original post was all about. It can
> give hours of enjoyment.

Taking this further, how would the OP react to someone givng an answer to a 
question (s)he was about to ask!

Alan


>
> Hazel.

"Ed Chilada"  wrote in message 
news:tbjb231unr79po2u25khccj5trjbsvic2g@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:43:21 GMT, "Alan Holmes"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>"Hazel"  wrote in message
>>news:j4ekz3n5pnid.1dksukkvbu4ge.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:04:02 GMT, common sense wrote:
>>>
>>>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for
>>>> the
>>>> 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric
>>>> interweb
>>>> when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness
>>>
>>> OK! Will do. But not just yet.
>>
>>Please, please, do not start top posting, just do things sensibly and add
>>comments AFTER the text you are commenting on, if you top post, no one has
>>any idea what the hell you are commenting on.
>
> Have you ever wondered why *loads* of people use top posting all the
> time and don't seem to have a problem with it?

Fortunately it is not very many, at least in the newsgruops I subscribe to, 
so perhaps I'm reading the newsgroups which attract the more intelligent 
subscribers!

Alan

>

Tommy wrote:
> NM wrote:
>>> Have you ever wondered why *loads* of people use top posting all the
>>> time and don't seem to have a problem with it?
>>>
>> Microsoft + Lazyness
> 
> You're correct about Microsoft - I have NEVER seen a PC for sale that
> doesn't have Microsoft so why do we have to go the tiny minority of Apple
> (?) way of doing thinks

Dell will soon be selling PCs with Linux installed - mind you you won't 
see these in the shops. There are also dealers who sell PCs loaded with 
Linux rather than Micro$oft.

-- 
John Wright

John Wright (john@pegasus.f2s.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying : 

> Dell will soon be selling PCs with Linux installed 

Dell have been selling PCs with Linux or with no OS for years, particularly 
servers. The only difference is that these are targetted at SOHO users.

> There are also dealers who sell PCs
> loaded with Linux rather than Micro$oft.

There's also plenty of suppliers who sell without any OS.

John Wright wrote:
> Tommy wrote:
>> NM wrote:
>>>> Have you ever wondered why *loads* of people use top posting all the
>>>> time and don't seem to have a problem with it?
>>>>
>>> Microsoft + Lazyness
>>
>> You're correct about Microsoft - I have NEVER seen a PC for sale that
>> doesn't have Microsoft so why do we have to go the tiny minority of Apple
>> (?) way of doing thinks
> 
> Dell will soon be selling PCs with Linux installed - mind you you won't 
> see these in the shops. There are also dealers who sell PCs loaded with 
> Linux rather than Micro$oft.
> 
I've got an old but perfectly functioning Apple G3 notebook I was 
thinking as an experiment of installing Linux on that to see if I got on 
with it, will it work?

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:59:26 GMT, NM wrote:

> John Wright wrote:
>> Tommy wrote:
>>> NM wrote:
>>>>> Have you ever wondered why *loads* of people use top posting all the
>>>>> time and don't seem to have a problem with it?
>>>>>
>>>> Microsoft + Lazyness
>>>
>>> You're correct about Microsoft - I have NEVER seen a PC for sale that
>>> doesn't have Microsoft so why do we have to go the tiny minority of Apple
>>> (?) way of doing thinks
>> 
>> Dell will soon be selling PCs with Linux installed - mind you you won't 
>> see these in the shops. There are also dealers who sell PCs loaded with 
>> Linux rather than Micro$oft.
>> 
> I've got an old but perfectly functioning Apple G3 notebook I was 
> thinking as an experiment of installing Linux on that to see if I got on 
> with it, will it work?

It will do well when it comes to top posting.

I need to get Linux to top post? Why? I can do it now if I want both top 
and bottom.

Manny wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:59:26 GMT, NM wrote:
> 
>> John Wright wrote:
>>> Tommy wrote:
>>>> NM wrote:
>>>>>> Have you ever wondered why *loads* of people use top posting all the
>>>>>> time and don't seem to have a problem with it?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Microsoft + Lazyness
>>>> You're correct about Microsoft - I have NEVER seen a PC for sale that
>>>> doesn't have Microsoft so why do we have to go the tiny minority of Apple
>>>> (?) way of doing thinks
>>> Dell will soon be selling PCs with Linux installed - mind you you won't 
>>> see these in the shops. There are also dealers who sell PCs loaded with 
>>> Linux rather than Micro$oft.
>>>
>> I've got an old but perfectly functioning Apple G3 notebook I was 
>> thinking as an experiment of installing Linux on that to see if I got on 
>> with it, will it work?
> 
> It will do well when it comes to top posting.

I need to get Linux to top post? Why? I can do it now if I want both top 
and bottom.

Alan Holmes wrote:
>  
> Please, please, do not start top posting, just do things sensibly and add 
> comments AFTER the text you are commenting on, if you top post, no one has 
> any idea what the hell you are commenting on.
> 
> Unless of course they happened to have read the previous post!

On 2007-04-18, Tommy  wrote:
> Rose wrote:
>  "Hazel"  wrote in message
>>>> news:j4ekz3n5pnid.1dksukkvbu4ge.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:04:02 GMT, common sense wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much
>>>>>> easier for the
>>>>>> 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric
>>>>>> interweb
>>>>>> when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness
>
> Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that the newest  mass medium is
> so full of old fashioned class ridden netiketers.

Usenet "the newest  mass medium"?

Weird. You do realise that Usenet predates the Internet, don't you?


-- 
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those
who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this
            or that problem will never be solved by science.
            [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

my cursor went to the top  of the post

Mike O'Sullivan wrote:
> Alan Holmes wrote:
>>
>> Please, please, do not start top posting, just do things sensibly
>> and add comments AFTER the text you are commenting on, if you top
>> post, no one has any idea what the hell you are commenting on.
>>
>> Unless of course they happened to have read the previous post!

"Tommy"  wrote in message 
news:BuIVh.1231$mk4.879@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
> my cursor went to the top  of the post

What a shame you'll never do likewise in the class.

Tommy wrote:
> my cursor went to the top  of the post
>
That'll be a pre-cursor ;-)

John Briggs wrote:
> The Wanderer wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:29:00 +0100, JFGrieve wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> If you use quotefix most of your problems with OE will stop.
>>>
>>> http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
>>
>> ..... but why should one need a third party bit of software to use
>> something with a problem that M$ have known about for years but won't
>> fix themselves?
>
> You've answered your own question: because M$ have known about it for
> years but won't fix it themselves :-)

Ahh... but they have in Windoze Mail that ships with Fista.
You do have to tell it to do it though.


-- 
Cheerz - Brownz
http://www.brownz.org/

In message <BuIVh.1231$mk4.879@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>, Tommy 
 writes
>my cursor went to the top  of the post
And if I tell you to jump of a cliff?
-- 
Clive.

On 2007-04-19, Brownz @ Work  wrote:

> Ahh... but they have in Windoze Mail that ships with Fista.

Fista? Excellent! Consider that stolen.

-- 
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those
who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this
            or that problem will never be solved by science.
            [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the biggest sign of cluelessness on Usenet?


-- 
Roadhog

Tommy wrote:
> my cursor went to the top  of the post

That makes it a surtitle.

"Roadhog"  wrote in message 
news:myZxs7Gc45JGFw9$@nildram.co.uk...
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the biggest sign of cluelessness on Usenet?

Very well put!

Alan

> Tommy wrote:
>> my cursor went to the top  of the post

Which they all do, but the solution is very, very simple, you just press the 
down button and, surprise, suprise, the cursor moves down the page.

Or is that too difficult for you to follow?


>

NM wrote:
> John Wright wrote:
>> Tommy wrote:
>>> NM wrote:
>>>>> Have you ever wondered why *loads* of people use top posting all the
>>>>> time and don't seem to have a problem with it?
>>>>>
>>>> Microsoft + Lazyness
>>>
>>> You're correct about Microsoft - I have NEVER seen a PC for sale that
>>> doesn't have Microsoft so why do we have to go the tiny minority of 
>>> Apple
>>> (?) way of doing thinks
>>
>> Dell will soon be selling PCs with Linux installed - mind you you 
>> won't see these in the shops. There are also dealers who sell PCs 
>> loaded with Linux rather than Micro$oft.
>>
> I've got an old but perfectly functioning Apple G3 notebook I was 
> thinking as an experiment of installing Linux on that to see if I got on 
> with it, will it work?

Linux has a reputation of being able to work on otherwise outdated 
machines. Granted when this is said people often think of Windows and 
its ever increasing need for resources but almost any machine can run Linux

-- 
John Wright

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:51:40 +0100, Roadhog
 wrote:

>A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
>Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>A: Top-posting.
>Q: What is the biggest sign of cluelessness on Usenet?

No it doesn't. It simply uses quoting for reference, not context. Top
posting it *not* about posting in the fashion you present and it
speaks volumes that you have to present a fictional scenario to try
and make your point.

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:10:18 +0100, jf 
wrote:

>There's nothing old-fashioned about communication conventions otherwise 
>written communications would be impossible.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but no other communication medium other than
usenet and email prompts people to quote what other people have just
said before responding. You don't do it in literature, in spoken
conversation, in IRC/IM. Therefore any attempt to apply the rules and
conventions of those mediums is folly.


> The incredibly easy to follow RFC guidelines on posting to the Usenet
> have been evolved over three decades

Last time I looked at the appropriate RFC (I forget the number), there
was very little about top-posting and the RFC itself hadn't changed in
years.

However, you're right to believe that it *ought* to chance since many
factors have changed the face of usenet use. Demographics, bandwidth
and especially always-on connections means that people often use
usenet in a far more immediate and chatty style than when these RFCs
were first crafted. Top posting lends itself to a far chattier style
of post where each post tends to only contain one or two points that
don't directly refer to a point in the original post - hence people
tend to post for reference, not context.

It seems slightly bizarre that the suggestion is that the thousands of
people who prefer top-posting and don't seem to have a problem
understanding it should be told they're doing something wrong because
they're at odds with the dozen or so people who wrote an RFC sometime
in the last millenium.



> or more to enable people all over the world to communicate 
>freely on about 100,000 subjects. I don't know how many members of the 
>Usenet community there are now world wide. Usenet is a remarkable 
>achievement and warrants our respect even more so now that it's under threat.

Threat? What threat?


>The machinery for changing those conventions favoured by "old fashioned 
>class ridden netiketers" as you so sneeringly called them, does exist as 
>a quick glance through the RFCs will show. There's even a newsgroup in 
>the Anarchists Liars and Terrorists (alt) hierarchy for those who, 
>perhaps due to mental deficiencies, are unable to use chronological 
>posting. It's alt.top-posting.fuckwits. Anyone can join. Try it at home.

Posts *are* made chronologically, it's just that some people don't
seem to be able to understand a threading newsreader. You should
always be wary of believing you're reading someone's post based only
on what someone else has quoted of it. If you're not familar with the
post being quoted, go to the original and read it. Then you'll see
where the respondent has cherry-picked and taken bits out of context.

If you ask me, it's those people that seem unable to handle another
posting style without getting upset or confused that have those
"mental deficiencies". Come on, it's not that hard...

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:50:23 GMT, "Alan Holmes"
 wrote:

>
>"common sense"  wrote in message 
>news:SCJUh.4086$kb4.790@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for 
>> the
>> 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric interweb
>> when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness
>
>No, becasue it does not make sense to have to read the asnwer to a query 
>before you read the query!

The original query is in the previous post in the thread, which a
threading newsreader (and we all have those these days, right?), will
show you in a glance. If you're following a thread then you'll have
only just read the query in its original post.

Not all people make queries or answers when posting to usenet.
Sometimes people want to say something and a quoted context isn't
required. There's no need to quote what someone else just said before
saying their piece.

It's crazy that people can assume that *everyone* wants to use usenet
in the same way as them and therefore their own preferences ought to
be relevant, apply and be adopted by absolutely everyone.

"Ed Chilada"  wrote in message 
news:ei4h23hdspfe69ehbkc0i0emkd1okrqipi@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:51:40 +0100, Roadhog
>  wrote:
>
>>A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
>>Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>>A: Top-posting.
>>Q: What is the biggest sign of cluelessness on Usenet?
>
> No it doesn't. It simply uses quoting for reference, not context. Top
> posting it *not* about posting in the fashion you present and it
> speaks volumes that you have to present a fictional scenario to try
> and make your point.

Yes it does!

It shows quite clearly the problmes associated with idiotic top posting, 
more especialy if the top poster is following up an item which may be at the 
end of a long post.

>

"Ed Chilada"  wrote in message 
news:6n4h23h1pp4ttlvij0bfphlparet4o071h@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:10:18 +0100, jf 
> wrote:
>
>>There's nothing old-fashioned about communication conventions otherwise
>>written communications would be impossible.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but no other communication medium other than
> usenet and email prompts people to quote what other people have just
> said before responding. You don't do it in literature, in spoken
> conversation, in IRC/IM. Therefore any attempt to apply the rules and
> conventions of those mediums is folly.

Does that mean if someone is about to ask you a question, you give an answer 
before they speak?

So if you do not quote whatever you answer to, how is any other reader going 
to know what the hell you are talking about?

"Ed Chilada"  wrote in message 
news:0n4h235k5okqt8rprrd7co815h7ogbrqf2@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:50:23 GMT, "Alan Holmes"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>"common sense"  wrote in message
>>news:SCJUh.4086$kb4.790@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>>> Could all NG posters PLEASE remember to Top Post Its so much easier for
>>> the
>>> 99.99% of people with Microsoft and have only joined the electric 
>>> interweb
>>> when it became fashionable rather than a sign of NERDishness
>>
>>No, becasue it does not make sense to have to read the asnwer to a query
>>before you read the query!
>
> The original query is in the previous post in the thread, which a
> threading newsreader (and we all have those these days, right?), will
> show you in a glance. If you're following a thread then you'll have
> only just read the query in its original post.
>
> Not all people make queries or answers when posting to usenet.
> Sometimes people want to say something and a quoted context isn't
> required. There's no need to quote what someone else just said before
> saying their piece.

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:51:20 GMT, "Alan Holmes"
 wrote:

>
>So if you do not quote whatever you answer to, how is any other reader going 
>to know what the hell you are talking about?

Because like I say, a top-posted comment often doesn't directly relate
to a comment of the other post and therefore doesn't need to supply a
context quote. You know what they're talking about, because all that
they're talking about is contained in what they say.

Perhaps look at it this way, you don't need a quote for the very first
post in a thread - yet it stands up in its own right and isn't
confusing. Top-posters often like to carry on in this self-contained
post fashion. Perhaps you could argue that it's a reflection of how
little they're actually taking on board of the previous post, but
that's another argument.

NO, But I wouldn't repeat the question

I say I say

NO, But I wouldn't repeat the question

Alan Holmes wrote:

>
> Does that mean if someone is about to ask you a question, you give an
> answer before they speak?

PS How do you know the q?

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:49:30 GMT, "Alan Holmes"
 wrote:

>
>"Ed Chilada"  wrote in message 
>news:6n4h23h1pp4ttlvij0bfphlparet4o071h@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:10:18 +0100, jf 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>There's nothing old-fashioned about communication conventions otherwise
>>>written communications would be impossible.
>>
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but no other communication medium other than
>> usenet and email prompts people to quote what other people have just
>> said before responding. You don't do it in literature, in spoken
>> conversation, in IRC/IM. Therefore any attempt to apply the rules and
>> conventions of those mediums is folly.
>
>Does that mean if someone is about to ask you a question, you give an answer 
>before they speak?

"any attempt to apply the rules and conventions of those mediums is
folly"

But if you insist that we go down this path, then I'll also ask you:

Do you quote back everything someone has just said you, verbatim,
before responding?


The answer to both yours and my questions is "of course not". This
only goes to prove that trying to compare usenet quoting with spoken
conversation simply isn't relevant.

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:46:41 GMT, "Alan Holmes"
 wrote:

>
>"Ed Chilada"  wrote in message 
>news:ei4h23hdspfe69ehbkc0i0emkd1okrqipi@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:51:40 +0100, Roadhog
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
>>>Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>>>A: Top-posting.
>>>Q: What is the biggest sign of cluelessness on Usenet?
>>
>> No it doesn't. It simply uses quoting for reference, not context. Top
>> posting it *not* about posting in the fashion you present and it
>> speaks volumes that you have to present a fictional scenario to try
>> and make your point.
>
>Yes it does!
>
>It shows quite clearly the problmes associated with idiotic top posting

No it doesn't. It shows quite clearly the problems associated with
structuring a single post in reverse line order - when the previous
lines have never been posted elsewhere. It also only works if the
lines *directly* refer to each other, which a top posted post usually
does not. Note how he's specifically presenting a question and answer
scenario. I would agree that top-posting doesn't work too well for
question-answer posts that need a reference quote (ie the question)
for the answer to make sense. But then not all posts are QA and
top-posts generally are not.


>more especialy if the top poster is following up an item which may be at the 
>end of a long post.

Perhaps that's simply an issue with quote trimming. It's similarly a
pain in the arse to scroll through page after page of quote to find a
single line comment at the bottom.