PIR interfering with wireless network

"Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com> wrote in message
news:op.uov9vsfd4buhsv_at_fx62.mshome.net...
I cannot locate whsat you've written.

That is because I have followed USENET protocol and bottom posted as I
was instructed to do so in such a nice way. Have a good day.

On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 13:17:51 -0000, ABLE1 <royboynospam_at_somewhere.net
wrote:


"Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com> wrote in message
news:op.uouhiyua4buhsv_at_fx62.mshome.net...
On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 21:41:59 -0000, ABLE1 <royboynospam_at_somewhere.net
wrote:

Very interesting!!!! Golly good show on the biscuit tin. Would have
never
thought of that one.

I can't take credit for it. It was suggested in this thread (or in the
same thread in some other groups).

It would be interesting to do one or both of the following.

Replace the offensive unit first with another of the same model.

They replaced it with an identical model, and the problem went away. I
suspected it might as they had put one in every office and only one
office
showed problems. The installer was bewildered and had never seen such a
thing before.

Replace the offensive unit with another manufactures dual tech model.

Do your same evaluation on each and see if there is a difference for
the
better or for the worse. As a back up plan have someone authorize the
install a high end PIR only unit.

On a lighter note this could be the reason for the snow in London.
Some
days you just never know what is going to happen next.

I certainly hope that someone is not jerking a chain as it were.

Good luck.

Les





"Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com> wrote in message
news:op.uoqtgb024buhsv_at_fx62.mshome.net...
I covered it with a biscuit tin lid today, and the problem immediately
vanished. I happend to spot a workman installing more of them and told
him
to remove it. He said therew as absolutely no way it could be causing
that
problem, but I persuaded him to remove it while a continuous ping was
on
the screen of a wireless laptop. It could clearly be seen that as soon
as
he unplugged it, everything worked, and when he put it back, packets
disappeared. He told me it used microwaves, but couldn't tell me the
frequency (although he thought it was meant to be substantially higher
than
2.4GHz). All of the detectors throughout the building look identical,
but
only this one appeared to cause problems. Perhaps it was faulty and
was
oscillating at half the correct frequency?

The whole of the new corridor still hates higher numbered channels for
no
apparent reason. Channel 1 works perfectly, channel 6 works with
older
laptops but not new ones(?!) and channel 11 works with nothing. There
is
only that one transmitter in range there, so who knows what's going
on!


On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:56:24 -0000, ABLE1 <royboynospam_at_somewhere.net
wrote:

Ok, I have been reading this thread with great amusement. :-)

A couple of things to clear up. A PIR motion detector is a Passive
Infrared
detector that detects movement in a space based upon focused infrared
temperature changes thru a Fresnel Lens of an object in front of the
detector. It cannot detect thru walls or glass.

A "Dual-Tech" Motion Detector uses two(dual) technologies to detect
motion
or movement in a space. It uses a PIR sensor and a Microwave sensor.
The
microwave sends out pulses of microwave energy into the space if the
return
signals change due to a person/object moving in the space (or outside
the
space because it can see thru walls) and there is a temperature
change
that
has been detected by the PIR at the same time there is an alarm.
This
is
less false alarm prone than the simple PIR.

All that being said the simple way to prove or disprove that the
detector
is
causing the problem is get the security tech to power down the panel
and
see
what happens.

My guess is that something else other than the detector is causing
the
problem and it is just a coincidence that it happened at the same
time
of
the install. It would be my guess that one of the following is the
cause.

1) The transceiver was moved from its original position and the
range
in
this area was modified.

2) Some metal object has been moved/placed at a point that is
deflecting
the signal.

3) A fluorescent light bulb/ballast is failing and giving off
massive
amount of RFI causing the interference.

4) Sun Spots are reaching a peak in your area.

5) The earth magnetic field has been modified in ways that cannot
be
fully explained. i.e. Government Plot!!!

5) All of the above.

6) Other

I have used the KISS method in the above description to ease the
pain.
Some error in wording may be found. Whoops!!! Sorry for any
confusion.

Hope that helps you to find your problem. Wireless is never perfect.

Good luck and have a nice day.

Les













"John Fields" <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:ltp8o4lkjp245bq5tkpdaqjbnas0eknqe1_at_4ax.com...











--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
http://www.petersphotos.com

What comes after 69?
Mouthwash.






--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
http://www.petersphotos.com

Two fish are in a tank. One says to the other, "I'll man the guns, you
drive".








































Good Show!!!






--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
http://www.petersphotos.com

A woman walks into a drugstore and asks the pharmacist if he sells size
extra large condoms.
He replies, "Yes we do. Would you like to buy some?"
She responds, "No, but do you mind if I wait around here until someone
does?

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 16:41:59 -0500, "ABLE1" <royboynospam_at_somewhere.net
wrote:

Very interesting!!!! Golly good show on the biscuit tin. Would have never
thought of that one.

It would be interesting to do one or both of the following.

Replace the offensive unit first with another of the same model.

Replace the offensive unit with another manufactures dual tech model.

Do your same evaluation on each and see if there is a difference for the
better or for the worse. As a back up plan have someone authorize the
install a high end PIR only unit.

On a lighter note this could be the reason for the snow in London. Some
days you just never know what is going to happen next.

I certainly hope that someone is not jerking a chain as it were.

Good luck.

Les

---
This is USENET, not email.

Please bottom post or, when appropriate, inline post.

JF

On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 02:24:14 -0000, ABLE1 <royboynospam_at_somewhere.net
wrote:


"Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com> wrote in message
news:op.uov9vsfd4buhsv_at_fx62.mshome.net...
I cannot locate whsat you've written.

That is because I have followed USENET protocol and bottom posted as I
was instructed to do so in such a nice way. Have a good day.

I usually bottom post aswell, unless the thread has already been top
posted, in which case I continue at the top to make it neater.

I didn't see your reply as it was after my sig. You didn't follow the sig
seperator snip guideline :-P

On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 13:17:51 -0000, ABLE1 <royboynospam_at_somewhere.net
wrote:


"Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com> wrote in message
news:op.uouhiyua4buhsv_at_fx62.mshome.net...
On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 21:41:59 -0000, ABLE1 <royboynospam_at_somewhere.net
wrote:

Very interesting!!!! Golly good show on the biscuit tin. Would have
never
thought of that one.

I can't take credit for it. It was suggested in this thread (or in
the
same thread in some other groups).

It would be interesting to do one or both of the following.

Replace the offensive unit first with another of the same model.

They replaced it with an identical model, and the problem went away.
I
suspected it might as they had put one in every office and only one
office
showed problems. The installer was bewildered and had never seen such
a
thing before.

Replace the offensive unit with another manufactures dual tech model.

Do your same evaluation on each and see if there is a difference for
the
better or for the worse. As a back up plan have someone authorize
the
install a high end PIR only unit.

On a lighter note this could be the reason for the snow in London.
Some
days you just never know what is going to happen next.

I certainly hope that someone is not jerking a chain as it were.

Good luck.

Les





"Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com> wrote in message
news:op.uoqtgb024buhsv_at_fx62.mshome.net...
I covered it with a biscuit tin lid today, and the problem
immediately
vanished. I happend to spot a workman installing more of them and
told
him
to remove it. He said therew as absolutely no way it could be
causing
that
problem, but I persuaded him to remove it while a continuous ping was
on
the screen of a wireless laptop. It could clearly be seen that as
soon
as
he unplugged it, everything worked, and when he put it back, packets
disappeared. He told me it used microwaves, but couldn't tell me the
frequency (although he thought it was meant to be substantially
higher
than
2.4GHz). All of the detectors throughout the building look
identical,
but
only this one appeared to cause problems. Perhaps it was faulty and
was
oscillating at half the correct frequency?

The whole of the new corridor still hates higher numbered channels
for
no
apparent reason. Channel 1 works perfectly, channel 6 works with
older
laptops but not new ones(?!) and channel 11 works with nothing.
There
is
only that one transmitter in range there, so who knows what's going
on!


On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:56:24 -0000, ABLE1
royboynospam_at_somewhere.net
wrote:

Ok, I have been reading this thread with great amusement. :-)

A couple of things to clear up. A PIR motion detector is a Passive
Infrared
detector that detects movement in a space based upon focused
infrared
temperature changes thru a Fresnel Lens of an object in front of
the
detector. It cannot detect thru walls or glass.

A "Dual-Tech" Motion Detector uses two(dual) technologies to detect
motion
or movement in a space. It uses a PIR sensor and a Microwave
sensor.
The
microwave sends out pulses of microwave energy into the space if
the
return
signals change due to a person/object moving in the space (or
outside
the
space because it can see thru walls) and there is a temperature
change
that
has been detected by the PIR at the same time there is an alarm.
This
is
less false alarm prone than the simple PIR.

All that being said the simple way to prove or disprove that the
detector
is
causing the problem is get the security tech to power down the
panel
and
see
what happens.

My guess is that something else other than the detector is causing
the
problem and it is just a coincidence that it happened at the same
time
of
the install. It would be my guess that one of the following is the
cause.

1) The transceiver was moved from its original position and the
range
in
this area was modified.

2) Some metal object has been moved/placed at a point that is
deflecting
the signal.

3) A fluorescent light bulb/ballast is failing and giving off
massive
amount of RFI causing the interference.

4) Sun Spots are reaching a peak in your area.

5) The earth magnetic field has been modified in ways that
cannot
be
fully explained. i.e. Government Plot!!!

5) All of the above.

6) Other

I have used the KISS method in the above description to ease the
pain.
Some error in wording may be found. Whoops!!! Sorry for any
confusion.

Hope that helps you to find your problem. Wireless is never
perfect.

Good luck and have a nice day.

Les













"John Fields" <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:ltp8o4lkjp245bq5tkpdaqjbnas0eknqe1_at_4ax.com...











--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
http://www.petersphotos.com

What comes after 69?
Mouthwash.






--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
http://www.petersphotos.com

Two fish are in a tank. One says to the other, "I'll man the guns, you
drive".








































Good Show!!!






--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
http://www.petersphotos.com

A woman walks into a drugstore and asks the pharmacist if he sells size
extra large condoms.
He replies, "Yes we do. Would you like to buy some?"
She responds, "No, but do you mind if I wait around here until someone
does?






--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
http://www.petersphotos.com

Why is it that when you transport something by car, it's called a
shipment, but when you transport something by ship, it's called cargo?

"Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com> wrote in message
news:op.uox20xc74buhsv_at_fx62.mshome.net...
On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 02:24:14 -0000, ABLE1 <royboynospam_at_somewhere.net
wrote:


"Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com> wrote in message
news:op.uov9vsfd4buhsv_at_fx62.mshome.net...
I cannot locate whsat you've written.

That is because I have followed USENET protocol and bottom posted as I
was instructed to do so in such a nice way. Have a good day.

I usually bottom post aswell, unless the thread has already been top
posted, in which case I continue at the top to make it neater.

I didn't see your reply as it was after my sig. You didn't follow the sig
seperator snip guideline :-P


Just breaking all the rules..................................... one at a
time ..........

On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 13:17:51 -0000, ABLE1 <royboynospam_at_somewhere.net
wrote:


"Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com> wrote in message
news:op.uouhiyua4buhsv_at_fx62.mshome.net...
On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 21:41:59 -0000, ABLE1 <royboynospam_at_somewhere.net
wrote:

Very interesting!!!! Golly good show on the biscuit tin. Would have
never
thought of that one.

I can't take credit for it. It was suggested in this thread (or in
the
same thread in some other groups).

It would be interesting to do one or both of the following.

Replace the offensive unit first with another of the same model.

They replaced it with an identical model, and the problem went away.
I
suspected it might as they had put one in every office and only one
office
showed problems. The installer was bewildered and had never seen such
a
thing before.

Replace the offensive unit with another manufactures dual tech model.

Do your same evaluation on each and see if there is a difference for
the
better or for the worse. As a back up plan have someone authorize
the
install a high end PIR only unit.

On a lighter note this could be the reason for the snow in London.
Some
days you just never know what is going to happen next.

I certainly hope that someone is not jerking a chain as it were.

Good luck.

Les





"Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com> wrote in message
news:op.uoqtgb024buhsv_at_fx62.mshome.net...













--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
http://www.petersphotos.com

Two fish are in a tank. One says to the other, "I'll man the guns, you
drive".








































Good Show!!!






--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
http://www.petersphotos.com

A woman walks into a drugstore and asks the pharmacist if he sells size
extra large condoms.
He replies, "Yes we do. Would you like to buy some?"
She responds, "No, but do you mind if I wait around here until someone
does?






--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
http://www.petersphotos.com

Why is it that when you transport something by car, it's called a
shipment, but when you transport something by ship, it's called cargo?

On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 02:25:48 -0000, ABLE1 <royboynospam_at_somewhere.net
wrote:


"Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com> wrote in message
news:op.uox20xc74buhsv_at_fx62.mshome.net...
On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 02:24:14 -0000, ABLE1 <royboynospam_at_somewhere.net
wrote:


"Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com> wrote in message
news:op.uov9vsfd4buhsv_at_fx62.mshome.net...
I cannot locate whsat you've written.

That is because I have followed USENET protocol and bottom posted as
I
was instructed to do so in such a nice way. Have a good day.

I usually bottom post aswell, unless the thread has already been top
posted, in which case I continue at the top to make it neater.

I didn't see your reply as it was after my sig. You didn't follow the
sig
seperator snip guideline :-P


Just breaking all the rules..................................... one at a
time ..........

Why limit yourself?

On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 13:17:51 -0000, ABLE1 <royboynospam_at_somewhere.net
wrote:


"Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com> wrote in message
news:op.uouhiyua4buhsv_at_fx62.mshome.net...
On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 21:41:59 -0000, ABLE1
royboynospam_at_somewhere.net
wrote:

Very interesting!!!! Golly good show on the biscuit tin. Would
have
never
thought of that one.

I can't take credit for it. It was suggested in this thread (or in
the
same thread in some other groups).

It would be interesting to do one or both of the following.

Replace the offensive unit first with another of the same model.

They replaced it with an identical model, and the problem went away.
I
suspected it might as they had put one in every office and only one
office
showed problems. The installer was bewildered and had never seen
such
a
thing before.

Replace the offensive unit with another manufactures dual tech
model.

Do your same evaluation on each and see if there is a difference
for
the
better or for the worse. As a back up plan have someone authorize
the
install a high end PIR only unit.

On a lighter note this could be the reason for the snow in London.
Some
days you just never know what is going to happen next.

I certainly hope that someone is not jerking a chain as it were.

Good luck.

Les





"Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com> wrote in message
news:op.uoqtgb024buhsv_at_fx62.mshome.net...













--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
http://www.petersphotos.com

Two fish are in a tank. One says to the other, "I'll man the guns,
you
drive".








































Good Show!!!






--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
http://www.petersphotos.com

A woman walks into a drugstore and asks the pharmacist if he sells
size
extra large condoms.
He replies, "Yes we do. Would you like to buy some?"
She responds, "No, but do you mind if I wait around here until someone
does?






--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
http://www.petersphotos.com

Why is it that when you transport something by car, it's called a
shipment, but when you transport something by ship, it's called cargo?






--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
http://www.petersphotos.com

He was deeply in love. When she spoke, he thought he heard bells, as if
she were a dustcart reversing.

"Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com> wrote in message
news:op.uoz0rfzv4buhsv_at_fx62.mshome.net...
On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 02:25:48 -0000, ABLE1 <royboynospam_at_somewhere.net
wrote:


"Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com> wrote in message
news:op.uox20xc74buhsv_at_fx62.mshome.net...
On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 02:24:14 -0000, ABLE1 <royboynospam_at_somewhere.net
wrote:


"Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com> wrote in message
news:op.uov9vsfd4buhsv_at_fx62.mshome.net...
I cannot locate whsat you've written.

That is because I have followed USENET protocol and bottom posted as
I
was instructed to do so in such a nice way. Have a good day.

I usually bottom post aswell, unless the thread has already been top
posted, in which case I continue at the top to make it neater.

I didn't see your reply as it was after my sig. You didn't follow the
sig
seperator snip guideline :-P


Just breaking all the rules..................................... one at a
time ..........

Making it last longer gives more satisfaction. So many rules too little
time.

Why limit yourself?

On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 13:17:51 -0000, ABLE1 <royboynospam_at_somewhere.net
wrote:


"Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com> wrote in message
news:op.uouhiyua4buhsv_at_fx62.mshome.net...

















































Good Show!!!






--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
http://www.petersphotos.com

A woman walks into a drugstore and asks the pharmacist if he sells
size
extra large condoms.
He replies, "Yes we do. Would you like to buy some?"
She responds, "No, but do you mind if I wait around here until someone
does?






--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
http://www.petersphotos.com

Why is it that when you transport something by car, it's called a
shipment, but when you transport something by ship, it's called cargo?






--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
http://www.petersphotos.com

He was deeply in love. When she spoke, he thought he heard bells, as if
she were a dustcart reversing.

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:22:11 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:

---
This is USENET, not email.

Please bottom post or, when appropriate, inline post.

JF

Why do you say "not email"? It annoys me when people top post in email aswell.
Email discussions often end with a few topics within them,
then top posting just gets confusing.

On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:37:40 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:22:11 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:

---
This is USENET, not email.

Please bottom post or, when appropriate, inline post.

JF

Why do you say "not email"? It annoys me when people top post in email aswell.
Email discussions often end with a few topics within them,
then top posting just gets confusing.

---
'Email' as in private email when the communicators know what went before
seems to be the convention.

This isn't private email and, since the discussion can twist and turn in
time and readers can join the thread at any time, reducing the confusion
by in-line or bottom posting is a good thing.

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:11:42 -0600, John Fields
jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:37:40 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:22:11 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:

---
This is USENET, not email.

Please bottom post or, when appropriate, inline post.

JF

Why do you say "not email"? It annoys me when people top post in email aswell.
Email discussions often end with a few topics within them,
then top posting just gets confusing.

---
'Email' as in private email when the communicators know what went before
seems to be the convention.

This isn't private email and, since the discussion can twist and turn in
time and readers can join the thread at any time, reducing the confusion
by in-line or bottom posting is a good thing.

---
I almost forgot about this part:

"I usually bottom post aswell, unless the thread has already been top
posted, in which case I continue at the top to make it neater."

So you support confusion for the sake of "neatness"?

Of course that PHucker supports confusion, though there is no

In article <u51uo49cm2pcve33vem32c9men6e3e27cm_at_4ax.com>,
jfields_at_austininstruments.com says...
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:11:42 -0600, John Fields
jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:37:40 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:22:11 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:

---
This is USENET, not email.

Please bottom post or, when appropriate, inline post.

JF

Why do you say "not email"? It annoys me when people top post in email aswell.
Email discussions often end with a few topics within them,
then top posting just gets confusing.

---
'Email' as in private email when the communicators know what went before
seems to be the convention.

This isn't private email and, since the discussion can twist and turn in
time and readers can join the thread at any time, reducing the confusion
by in-line or bottom posting is a good thing.

---
I almost forgot about this part:

"I usually bottom post aswell, unless the thread has already been top
posted, in which case I continue at the top to make it neater."

So you support confusion for the sake of "neatness"?

Of course that PHucker supports confusion, though there is no
"neatness" in unlimited line lengths. He basically doesn't care
what his readers have to go through. *He* is more impotent.

On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 12:47:19 -0600, krw <krw_at_att.zzzzzzzzz> wrote:

In article <u51uo49cm2pcve33vem32c9men6e3e27cm_at_4ax.com>,
jfields_at_austininstruments.com says...
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:11:42 -0600, John Fields
jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:37:40 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:22:11 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:

---
This is USENET, not email.

Please bottom post or, when appropriate, inline post.

JF

Why do you say "not email"? It annoys me when people top post in email aswell.
Email discussions often end with a few topics within them,
then top posting just gets confusing.

---
'Email' as in private email when the communicators know what went before
seems to be the convention.

This isn't private email and, since the discussion can twist and turn in
time and readers can join the thread at any time, reducing the confusion
by in-line or bottom posting is a good thing.

---
I almost forgot about this part:

"I usually bottom post aswell, unless the thread has already been top
posted, in which case I continue at the top to make it neater."

So you support confusion for the sake of "neatness"?

Of course that PHucker supports confusion, though there is no
"neatness" in unlimited line lengths. He basically doesn't care
what his readers have to go through. *He* is more impotent.

---
Interestingly, reading his posts results in no "penalty" but, replying
to them does in that that invokes his unlimited line length message in
the "from" frame.

It's easy to fix by just mousing over to where you want the text to
break and clicking.

After that, the rest of the text shows up properly parsed, but without
the sequence indicator showing up.

It's easy enough to insert and fix up his post, but most of the time
it's "Why bother?"

He was deeply in love. When she spoke, he thought he heard bells, as if
she were a dustcart reversing.

On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:37:40 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:22:11 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:

---
This is USENET, not email.

Please bottom post or, when appropriate, inline post.

JF

Why do you say "not email"? It annoys me when people top post in email aswell.
Email discussions often end with a few topics within them,
then top posting just gets confusing.

---
'Email' as in private email when the communicators know what went before
seems to be the convention.

This isn't private email and, since the discussion can twist and turn in
time and readers can join the thread at any time, reducing the confusion
by in-line or bottom posting is a good thing.

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:11:42 -0600, John Fields
jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:37:40 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:22:11 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:

---
This is USENET, not email.

Please bottom post or, when appropriate, inline post.

JF

Why do you say "not email"? It annoys me when people top post in email aswell.
Email discussions often end with a few topics within them,
then top posting just gets confusing.

---
'Email' as in private email when the communicators know what went before
seems to be the convention.

This isn't private email and, since the discussion can twist and turn in
time and readers can join the thread at any time, reducing the confusion
by in-line or bottom posting is a good thing.

---
I almost forgot about this part:

"I usually bottom post aswell, unless the thread has already been top
posted, in which case I continue at the top to make it neater."

So you support confusion for the sake of "neatness"?

On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 12:47:19 -0600, krw <krw_at_att.zzzzzzzzz> wrote:

In article <u51uo49cm2pcve33vem32c9men6e3e27cm_at_4ax.com>,
jfields_at_austininstruments.com says...
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:11:42 -0600, John Fields
jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:37:40 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:22:11 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:

---
This is USENET, not email.

Please bottom post or, when appropriate, inline post.

JF

Why do you say "not email"? It annoys me when people top post in email aswell.
Email discussions often end with a few topics within them,
then top posting just gets confusing.

---
'Email' as in private email when the communicators know what went before
seems to be the convention.

This isn't private email and, since the discussion can twist and turn in
time and readers can join the thread at any time, reducing the confusion
by in-line or bottom posting is a good thing.

---
I almost forgot about this part:

"I usually bottom post aswell, unless the thread has already been top
posted, in which case I continue at the top to make it neater."

So you support confusion for the sake of "neatness"?

Of course that PHucker supports confusion, though there is no
"neatness" in unlimited line lengths. He basically doesn't care
what his readers have to go through. *He* is more impotent.

---
Interestingly, reading his posts results in no "penalty" but, replying
to them does in that that invokes his unlimited line length message in
the "from" frame.

It's easy to fix by just mousing over to where you want the text to
break and clicking.

After that, the rest of the text shows up properly parsed, but without
the sequence indicator showing up.

It's easy enough to insert and fix up his post, but most of the time
it's "Why bother?"