"Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote:



> Quote some netiquette where it's deemed that top-posting is preferable,
> and I'll admit you're right.
>

Screw NETIQUETTE!

Bottom posting originated in the early days of newsgroups, LONG before
the Web was introduced, when people used character terminals and could
only display one post at a time... and the time to load and read next
post extended out to tens of seconds... or maybe even a minute or more.

There is simply no reason, now to do that.... given MOST posters cannot
be bothered to trim, then your 'netiquette' is defeated... if you want to
bitch, bitch about those who dont trim - who post the entire thread
contents and then post a single line!!!!

and leave those of us who employ their common sense alone!

In other words, you dont know what you are talking about... you are
bitching about the wrong thing and you argument is as stupid as those who
complain about 'wasting bandwidth on a text NG'

so just STFU!




--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!

 

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <yoCdnW_xMP11JLvZRVn-jg@adelphia.com>,
> Fred W <Malt_Hound@*spam-me-not*yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> > In article <4427319f.27752562@nntp.charter.net>,
>> > SgtSilicon <secretspam@ihatespam.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Top posting is the correct way. It's the Johnny Come Lately's that
>> >>think it's all washed up.

WRONG! The NG old timers HATED top posting! For the same unsupportable
reasons.

>
>> > As is apostrophe abuse, obviously.
>
>
>> Whats an apostrophe? You Johnny Come Lately's think you can bamboozle
>> us with all you're big word's.


And a big "ARRRGGGHHHHH!" from me, as well!

>
>> Personally, Im much more of a ellipsis abuser... They just seem to fit
>> into the typed conversation's more better...
>
> Brilliant.
>

Finally ... something in this thread that makes some sense!

I'm an 'ellipse-abuser', myself... it places a conversational pause
quality into the repartee that shouldn't be confused with the hard-print
usage; which is.... to signify a selective quote.



--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!

 

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <yoCdnW_xMP11JLvZRVn-jg@adelphia.com>,
> Fred W <Malt_Hound@*spam-me-not*yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> > In article <4427319f.27752562@nntp.charter.net>,
>> > SgtSilicon <secretspam@ihatespam.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Top posting is the correct way. It's the Johnny Come Lately's that
>> >>think it's all washed up.

WRONG! The NG old timers HATED top posting! For the same unsupportable
reasons.

>
>> > As is apostrophe abuse, obviously.
>
>
>> Whats an apostrophe? You Johnny Come Lately's think you can bamboozle
>> us with all you're big word's.


And a big "ARRRGGGHHHHH!" from me, as well!

>
>> Personally, Im much more of a ellipsis abuser... They just seem to fit
>> into the typed conversation's more better...
>
> Brilliant.
>

Finally ... something in this thread that makes some sense!

I'm an 'ellipse-abuser', myself... it places a conversational pause
quality into the repartee that shouldn't be confused with the hard-print
usage; which is.... to signify a selective quote.



--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!

 

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <yoCdnW_xMP11JLvZRVn-jg@adelphia.com>,
> Fred W <Malt_Hound@*spam-me-not*yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> > In article <4427319f.27752562@nntp.charter.net>,
>> > SgtSilicon <secretspam@ihatespam.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Top posting is the correct way. It's the Johnny Come Lately's that
>> >>think it's all washed up.

WRONG! The NG old timers HATED top posting! For the same unsupportable
reasons.

>
>> > As is apostrophe abuse, obviously.
>
>
>> Whats an apostrophe? You Johnny Come Lately's think you can bamboozle
>> us with all you're big word's.


And a big "ARRRGGGHHHHH!" from me, as well!

>
>> Personally, Im much more of a ellipsis abuser... They just seem to fit
>> into the typed conversation's more better...
>
> Brilliant.
>

Finally ... something in this thread that makes some sense!

I'm an 'ellipse-abuser', myself... it places a conversational pause
quality into the repartee that shouldn't be confused with the hard-print
usage; which is.... to signify a selective quote.



--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!

 

I'll put this on top and at the bottom so you're all happy and not happy.
Unless you drive BMW's, and I do, please take this infantile argument
elsewhere.

"Backyard Mechanic" <pettyfog@yaywho.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9793519CF8C67pettyfogery@207.115.17.102...
> "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Quote some netiquette where it's deemed that top-posting is preferable,
> > and I'll admit you're right.
> >
>
> Screw NETIQUETTE!
>
> Bottom posting originated in the early days of newsgroups, LONG before
> the Web was introduced, when people used character terminals and could
> only display one post at a time... and the time to load and read next
> post extended out to tens of seconds... or maybe even a minute or more.
>
> There is simply no reason, now to do that.... given MOST posters cannot
> be bothered to trim, then your 'netiquette' is defeated... if you want to
> bitch, bitch about those who dont trim - who post the entire thread
> contents and then post a single line!!!!
>
> and leave those of us who employ their common sense alone!
>
> In other words, you dont know what you are talking about... you are
> bitching about the wrong thing and you argument is as stupid as those who
> complain about 'wasting bandwidth on a text NG'
>
> so just STFU!
>
>
>
>
> --
> Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
> you pay..DEAL with it!

Now it's on the bottom for the other group. Take your childish fights
elsewhere, unless you drive a BMW.

 

I'll put this on top and at the bottom so you're all happy and not happy.
Unless you drive BMW's, and I do, please take this infantile argument
elsewhere.

"Backyard Mechanic" <pettyfog@yaywho.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9793519CF8C67pettyfogery@207.115.17.102...
> "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Quote some netiquette where it's deemed that top-posting is preferable,
> > and I'll admit you're right.
> >
>
> Screw NETIQUETTE!
>
> Bottom posting originated in the early days of newsgroups, LONG before
> the Web was introduced, when people used character terminals and could
> only display one post at a time... and the time to load and read next
> post extended out to tens of seconds... or maybe even a minute or more.
>
> There is simply no reason, now to do that.... given MOST posters cannot
> be bothered to trim, then your 'netiquette' is defeated... if you want to
> bitch, bitch about those who dont trim - who post the entire thread
> contents and then post a single line!!!!
>
> and leave those of us who employ their common sense alone!
>
> In other words, you dont know what you are talking about... you are
> bitching about the wrong thing and you argument is as stupid as those who
> complain about 'wasting bandwidth on a text NG'
>
> so just STFU!
>
>
>
>
> --
> Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
> you pay..DEAL with it!

Now it's on the bottom for the other group. Take your childish fights
elsewhere, unless you drive a BMW.

 

I'll put this on top and at the bottom so you're all happy and not happy.
Unless you drive BMW's, and I do, please take this infantile argument
elsewhere.

"Backyard Mechanic" <pettyfog@yaywho.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9793519CF8C67pettyfogery@207.115.17.102...
> "Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Quote some netiquette where it's deemed that top-posting is preferable,
> > and I'll admit you're right.
> >
>
> Screw NETIQUETTE!
>
> Bottom posting originated in the early days of newsgroups, LONG before
> the Web was introduced, when people used character terminals and could
> only display one post at a time... and the time to load and read next
> post extended out to tens of seconds... or maybe even a minute or more.
>
> There is simply no reason, now to do that.... given MOST posters cannot
> be bothered to trim, then your 'netiquette' is defeated... if you want to
> bitch, bitch about those who dont trim - who post the entire thread
> contents and then post a single line!!!!
>
> and leave those of us who employ their common sense alone!
>
> In other words, you dont know what you are talking about... you are
> bitching about the wrong thing and you argument is as stupid as those who
> complain about 'wasting bandwidth on a text NG'
>
> so just STFU!
>
>
>
>
> --
> Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
> you pay..DEAL with it!

Now it's on the bottom for the other group. Take your childish fights
elsewhere, unless you drive a BMW.

 

Jim Warman wrote:
> How long do you stare at your before you flush???

Why - do you want to stare at them instead? I'm sure Dave can save some
for you.

> Welcome to the modern world.... spelling anything correctly is optional
> (exclusive of typos)...

I guess it is if you want to come off as an uneducated twit. Oh - you
are an uneducated twit. Sorry.

> grammar will never be one of my strong points (what
> do you expect from a grade 8 drop-out).

Point taken. Was it drugs or just stupidity?

> I couldn't conjugate a verb or parse
> a statement to save my life.... BUT... I do fix cars for a living.... and I
> do offer my "wisdom" freely... I don't think that where my reply resides
> should be a bone of contention.

Simply because you THINK you have something valuable to offer us (which
is questionable) isn't a reason for us to tolerate your rudeness.

> As for falling asleep... I take it that you have timed yourself?
>
> Proudly top posted by someone who wonders why he is replying to something
> this silly....

You replied because you are a clueless uneducated nerk with too much
time on
his hands. NTTAWWT. Some very nice people are also nerks - unfortunately
- you're not one of them.

 

Jim Warman wrote:
> How long do you stare at your before you flush???

Why - do you want to stare at them instead? I'm sure Dave can save some
for you.

> Welcome to the modern world.... spelling anything correctly is optional
> (exclusive of typos)...

I guess it is if you want to come off as an uneducated twit. Oh - you
are an uneducated twit. Sorry.

> grammar will never be one of my strong points (what
> do you expect from a grade 8 drop-out).

Point taken. Was it drugs or just stupidity?

> I couldn't conjugate a verb or parse
> a statement to save my life.... BUT... I do fix cars for a living.... and I
> do offer my "wisdom" freely... I don't think that where my reply resides
> should be a bone of contention.

Simply because you THINK you have something valuable to offer us (which
is questionable) isn't a reason for us to tolerate your rudeness.

> As for falling asleep... I take it that you have timed yourself?
>
> Proudly top posted by someone who wonders why he is replying to something
> this silly....

You replied because you are a clueless uneducated nerk with too much
time on
his hands. NTTAWWT. Some very nice people are also nerks - unfortunately
- you're not one of them.

 

Jim Warman wrote:
> How long do you stare at your before you flush???

Why - do you want to stare at them instead? I'm sure Dave can save some
for you.

> Welcome to the modern world.... spelling anything correctly is optional
> (exclusive of typos)...

I guess it is if you want to come off as an uneducated twit. Oh - you
are an uneducated twit. Sorry.

> grammar will never be one of my strong points (what
> do you expect from a grade 8 drop-out).

Point taken. Was it drugs or just stupidity?

> I couldn't conjugate a verb or parse
> a statement to save my life.... BUT... I do fix cars for a living.... and I
> do offer my "wisdom" freely... I don't think that where my reply resides
> should be a bone of contention.

Simply because you THINK you have something valuable to offer us (which
is questionable) isn't a reason for us to tolerate your rudeness.

> As for falling asleep... I take it that you have timed yourself?
>
> Proudly top posted by someone who wonders why he is replying to something
> this silly....

You replied because you are a clueless uneducated nerk with too much
time on
his hands. NTTAWWT. Some very nice people are also nerks - unfortunately
- you're not one of them.