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.

> > 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.

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

Brilliant.

--
*If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled?

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

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.

> > 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.

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

Brilliant.

--
*If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled?

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

Jim Warman wrote:
> How long do you stare at your before you flush???
>
Not only do I stare at it, I measure it, weigh it, and check for corn
and nuts. Oh, nevermind he wasn't asking me.....

 

Jim Warman wrote:
> How long do you stare at your before you flush???
>
Not only do I stare at it, I measure it, weigh it, and check for corn
and nuts. Oh, nevermind he wasn't asking me.....

 

Jim Warman wrote:
> How long do you stare at your before you flush???
>
Not only do I stare at it, I measure it, weigh it, and check for corn
and nuts. Oh, nevermind he wasn't asking me.....

 

In message <MPG.1e9128a5ad02badb9898db@news.clara.net>
Alan LeHun <try@reply.to> wrote:

> That's just as bad, maybe, worse. Yes. I concede that top posting is a
> lesser crime than not snipping irrelevant content.

However, top posting removes any inclination or incentive to snip,
leading to horrendously long messages, often with .sigs included.

--
Peter Bell (Note Spamtrap - To reply, replace 'invalid' with 'bellfamily')

 

In message <MPG.1e9128a5ad02badb9898db@news.clara.net>
Alan LeHun <try@reply.to> wrote:

> That's just as bad, maybe, worse. Yes. I concede that top posting is a
> lesser crime than not snipping irrelevant content.

However, top posting removes any inclination or incentive to snip,
leading to horrendously long messages, often with .sigs included.

--
Peter Bell (Note Spamtrap - To reply, replace 'invalid' with 'bellfamily')

 

In message <MPG.1e9128a5ad02badb9898db@news.clara.net>
Alan LeHun <try@reply.to> wrote:

> That's just as bad, maybe, worse. Yes. I concede that top posting is a
> lesser crime than not snipping irrelevant content.

However, top posting removes any inclination or incentive to snip,
leading to horrendously long messages, often with .sigs included.

--
Peter Bell (Note Spamtrap - To reply, replace 'invalid' with 'bellfamily')

 

"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!

 

"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!