On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 23:50:36 GMT, "Noozer"
<dont.spam@me.here> wrote:
>
>"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote ** And context interference fixed
>** in message news:46619AED.A8D15A93@yahoo.com...
>> Noozer wrote: ** and top-posted - fixed **
>>>
>>> Get a f'ing life, will you?
>
>Don't **** with my posts. My comment belonged EXACTLY where I put it. It
>wasn't a reply to anything in that post.
>
Then you were replying to the wrong person and/or should
have snipped out some of the content.
>Bottom posting is WRONG.
>
In a group that uses the top-posting convention, yes.
In a group that uses bottom-posting (most groups) no.
Even in web forums, the BB * code* automatically formats
replies using the "[quote] or [Q] codes before the reply so
it's bottom posting, because it is supposed to be bottom
posted if there is any prior content remaining. On usenet
participants are expected to realize this since the vast
majority do, it is obviously the convention seen on other's
postings.
It is a usenet convention that only a few groups choose to,
as a whole/ all-or-nothing, deviate from. This is not one
of those groups. When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
>All posts should be made, in context WITHIN the original post.
Yes, and since we read from the top of a page to the bottom
as an English convention, prior text is posted before the
added text to retain the context. The reply is always
interspersed or after but never before other text since the
text would have been snipped if non-contextual to the reply.
Yeah, but think of it like this. If you bottom post, someone cruising
through the thread has to read the same drivel over and over before reaching
your well thought out opinion.
You might counter by suggesting the use of snippage - but as someone who
once got paid to write, I can tell you, snipping is a __very__ delicate
operation. Slip when you snip and the snippee screams foul at the top of
his/her lungs. In fact, if I were braver, or just more primitive, I would
have killed an editor I once had......
Thus one cruising thru the thread must also judge the quality of snippage -
way too much work for usenet.
And I have seen folks on usenet snip to avoid a point/argument in the
previous post - so perhaps one should have to post a bond or get a license
before one is allowed to perform that sensitive operation.
))
Mike
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
newsi8463tqk137hp8cfomdnrg70e8vi8oqr1@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 23:50:36 GMT, "Noozer"
> <dont.spam@me.here> wrote:
>
>>
>>"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote ** And context interference
>>fixed
>>** in message news:46619AED.A8D15A93@yahoo.com...
>>> Noozer wrote: ** and top-posted - fixed **
>>>>
>>>> Get a f'ing life, will you?
>>
>>Don't **** with my posts. My comment belonged EXACTLY where I put it. It
>>wasn't a reply to anything in that post.
>>
>
> Then you were replying to the wrong person and/or should
> have snipped out some of the content.
>
>
>
>>Bottom posting is WRONG.
>>
>
> In a group that uses the top-posting convention, yes.
> In a group that uses bottom-posting (most groups) no.
> Even in web forums, the BB * code* automatically formats
> replies using the "[quote] or [Q] codes before the reply so
> it's bottom posting, because it is supposed to be bottom
> posted if there is any prior content remaining. On usenet
> participants are expected to realize this since the vast
> majority do, it is obviously the convention seen on other's
> postings.
>
> It is a usenet convention that only a few groups choose to,
> as a whole/ all-or-nothing, deviate from. This is not one
> of those groups. When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
>
>
>>All posts should be made, in context WITHIN the original post.
>
> Yes, and since we read from the top of a page to the bottom
> as an English convention, prior text is posted before the
> added text to retain the context. The reply is always
> interspersed or after but never before other text since the
> text would have been snipped if non-contextual to the reply.
>
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 23:28:30 -0400, "MF"
<cheatsandlies@spammersbl0w.com> wrote:
>Yeah, but think of it like this.
>>
There's no "think of it like this". The proper form was
explained so at this point you're just inable to learn
anything. There is nothing you could post that changes
this.
what about spelling/grammar are you gonna rep us on that to.
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:b8s46318ls6fr0059fdak6d1eecubflut1@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 23:28:30 -0400, "MF"
> <cheatsandlies@spammersbl0w.com> wrote:
>
>>Yeah, but think of it like this.
>>>
>
> There's no "think of it like this". The proper form was
> explained so at this point you're just inable to learn
> anything. There is nothing you could post that changes
> this.
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 13:14:33 +0100, "Pet Parker"
<998@128btinternet.com> wrote:
>inable.............hmmmm
>
>what about spelling/grammar are you gonna rep us on that to.
>
>
If you can't discriminate the difference between occasional
spelling or typos and deliberate choices in posting style,
perhaps you'd be better off refraining from comment?
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:jrd563pjp30milakd7rubic2dodgsl3oto@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 13:14:33 +0100, "Pet Parker"
> <998@128btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>inable.............hmmmm
>>
>>what about spelling/grammar are you gonna rep us on that to.
>>
>>
>
>
> If you can't discriminate the difference between occasional
> spelling or typos and deliberate choices in posting style,
> perhaps you'd be better off refraining from comment?
"MF" wrote:
> Yeah, but think of it like this. If you bottom post, someone cruising
> through the thread has to read the same drivel over and over before
> reaching your well thought out opinion.
As a rule of thumb, those who are too lazy to snip content which is not
relevent to what they are replying to are not worth the time to read.
Hence, after a screen or two of "the same drivel", it is on to the next
message (in most cases).
MF wrote:
>
> Yeah, but think of it like this. If you bottom post, someone
> cruising through the thread has to read the same drivel over and
> over before reaching your well thought out opinion.
>
> You might counter by suggesting the use of snippage - but as
> someone who once got paid to write, I can tell you, snipping is
> a __very__ delicate operation. Slip when you snip and the snippee
> screams foul at the top of his/her lungs. In fact, if I were
> braver, or just more primitive, I would have killed an editor I
> once had......
That is no excuse. You know what you are responding to, and just
need to remove all else. Else things like this post happen, when
snipping removes all the background. Here it doesn't really
matter.
--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
<http://kadaitcha.cx/vista/dogsbreakfast/index.html>
cbfalconer at maineline dot net
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:b8s46318ls6fr0059fdak6d1eecubflut1@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 23:28:30 -0400, "MF"
> <cheatsandlies@spammersbl0w.com> wrote:
>
>>Yeah, but think of it like this.
>>>
>
> There's no "think of it like this". The proper form was
> explained so at this point you're just inable to learn
> anything. There is nothing you could post that changes
> this.
Well, what I said in the post that _you improperly snipped_ was a joke.
But, dolt, there is _always_ "think of it like this."
In every instance in every situation in human history. Do you in your
ultimate triviality think that Usenet transcends that? Do you think that
your stupid adolescent strictures transcend that?
On a lighter note, anyone that can't handle a mix of bottom/inline/top
posting has very serious problems of anal retentiveness. What we might in
ordinary language call obsessive-compulsive rigidity. And someone who
corrects everyone who top posts, and someone who usually reinforces that
correction should clearly seek at least semi-professional help. You might
start by saying "I AM A USENET MAVEN AND EVERYONE MUST DO WHAT I SAY, please
help me, Doctor, I can't stop saying that."
Re: What is my real CPU? 
))
i8463tqk137hp8cfomdnrg70e8vi8oqr1@4ax.com...
Linear Mode
