Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Peter Hucker
Guest
Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:19 pm
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 01:06:26 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:35:28 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:
He was deeply in love. When she spoke, he thought he heard bells, as if
she were a dustcart reversing.
---
leaving you alone again, naturally?
What?
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com
__,='`````'=/__
'// (o) \(o) \ `' _,-,
//| ,_) (`\ ,-'`_,-\
,-~~~\ `'===' /-, \==```` \__
/ `----' `\ \ \/
,-` , \ ,.-\ \
/ , \,-`\`_,-`\_,..--'\
,` ,/, ,>, ) \--`````\
( `\`---'` `-,-'`_,< \ \_,.--'`
`. `--. _,-'`_,-` | \
[`-.___ <`_,-'`------( /
(`` _,-\ \ --`````````|--`
Quote:
-`_,-`\,-` , |
`_,' , /\ /
` \/\,-/ `/ \/`\_/V\_/
( ._. ) ( .__. )
| | | |
\,---_| |_---./
ooOO(_) (_)OOoo
John Fields
Guest
Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:41 pm
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:13:39 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com>
wrote:
Quote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 16:11:42 -0000, 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.
No, in email you can end up discussing a few different things, 5 conversations at once. In-line posting is the only way this makes sense.
---
Perhaps, but that's beside the point, which is that top posting on
USENET is a bad thing.
The way to fix it is to arrange the ordering of the posts from top to
bottom, reply at the bottom (or inline, if required) and then ask that
the pattern be followed.
JF
John Fields
Guest
Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:43 pm
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:14:00 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com>
wrote:
Quote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 16:16:38 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
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"?
Alternately posting top and bottom is more confusing than all at the top.
---
Then fix the post by arranging it properly, reply to it either inline or
bottom, and ask that the recipient follow suit.
JF
Peter Hucker
Guest
Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:47 pm
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:41:57 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:13:39 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 16:11:42 -0000, 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.
No, in email you can end up discussing a few different things, 5 conversations at once. In-line posting is the only way this makes sense.
---
Perhaps, but that's beside the point, which is that top posting on
USENET is a bad thing.
The way to fix it is to arrange the ordering of the posts from top to
bottom, reply at the bottom (or inline, if required) and then ask that
the pattern be followed.
I agree with you that we should all post at the bottom. But I'm not going to take mny time to rearrange someone else's mistake. It's not THAT big a deal.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com
!
M
/ \
{ }
{ }
{ }
# #
:_____:
|| ||
|!___!|
| ___ |
|/###\|
!{###}!
||###||
||!!!||
/111\/|!!!|\/111\
| !|@@@|! |
| !|@@@|! |
|---O-!\###/!-O---|
|_____! --- !_____|
{|-----! - !-----|}
q! ! ||| ! !p
( | |\ /| | )
/\ q | -- | |_| | -- | p /\
/ \ { | | } / \
| | : ( || | \ / | || ) : | |
| | : <\------- / W \ -------/> : | |
| |!!/ ! || /\ /\ || ! \!!| |
| _^^ ( || || || || ) ^^_ |
-</ \ || \\ // || / \>-
<// ! || \\ // || ! \\>
_-</||___-------| || \\ // || |-------___||\>-_
/ || \ || --- || / || \
o<|| ||______------|||___ ___|||------______|| ||>o
\ |__-- ____________/ ! ! \____________ --__| /
\ |____---| ! \ U / ! |---____| /
\| | _______ ! ! ! ! _______ | |/
\ _____---| |--=| | | |=--| |---_____ /
"" |\|----| |----|/| ""
/||! ! ! !||\
_/Y ||! ! ! !|| Y\_
__/ ||!____! !____!|| \__
/ ||||####||####||| \
| \| |||| |||| |/ |
| / ==== ==== \ |
\___---' \!!/ \!!/ '---___/
[$$$$] [$$$$]
#### ####
###### ######
###############
John Fields
Guest
Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:48 pm
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:14:24 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com>
wrote:
Quote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 00:45:16 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
It's easy enough to insert and fix up his post, but most of the time
it's "Why bother?"
Why bother getting a news client that can word wrap when replying? I dunno, ask yourself.
---
Since yours is the source of the problem, why not fix yours?
JF
John Fields
Guest
Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:52 pm
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:19:04 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com>
wrote:
Quote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 01:06:26 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:35:28 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:
He was deeply in love. When she spoke, he thought he heard bells, as if
she were a dustcart reversing.
---
leaving you alone again, naturally?
What?
Huh?
JF
krw
Guest
Tue Feb 10, 2009 9:23 pm
In article <fki3p4pote5ndg80nfif4i3op0eical605_at_4ax.com>,
jfields_at_austininstruments.com says...>
Quote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:14:00 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 16:16:38 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
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"?
Alternately posting top and bottom is more confusing than all at the top.
---
Then fix the post by arranging it properly, reply to it either inline or
bottom, and ask that the recipient follow suit.
I reply post-fix or preferably in-fix, then delete all the stuff
the OP munged. Hopefully they;ll get the message, though they're
usually a pig-headed self-important moron like the PHucker.
krw
Guest
Tue Feb 10, 2009 9:24 pm
In article <0oi3p45gfoeb1e14nbg6jgaje5jgd9d7nr_at_4ax.com>,
jfields_at_austininstruments.com says...>
Quote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:14:24 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 00:45:16 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
It's easy enough to insert and fix up his post, but most of the time
it's "Why bother?"
Why bother getting a news client that can word wrap when replying? I dunno, ask yourself.
---
Since yours is the source of the problem, why not fix yours?
Because he's an arrogant Brit, like the Dumb Donkey.
Peter Hucker
Guest
Tue Feb 10, 2009 9:53 pm
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:48:55 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:14:24 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 00:45:16 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
It's easy enough to insert and fix up his post, but most of the time
it's "Why bother?"
Why bother getting a news client that can word wrap when replying? I dunno, ask yourself.
---
Since yours is the source of the problem, why not fix yours?
What causes the problem is irrelevant. You may aswell say the invention of the motor vehicle cause Mr Bloggs to die yesterday, so let's all go sue Henry Ford.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com
They say confuscious does his crosswords with a pen.
Peter Hucker
Guest
Tue Feb 10, 2009 9:53 pm
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:52:46 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:19:04 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 01:06:26 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:35:28 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:
He was deeply in love. When she spoke, he thought he heard bells, as if
she were a dustcart reversing.
---
leaving you alone again, naturally?
What?
Huh?
I did not follow your response to my sig.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com
A nice, calm and respectable lady went into the pharmacy, right up to the pharmacist, looked straight into his eyes, and said, “I would like to buy some cyanide.”The pharmacist asked, “Why in the world do you need cyanide?”
The lady replied, “I need it to poison my husband.”
The pharmacists eyes got big and he exclaimed, “Lord have mercy!
I can’t give you cyanide to kill your husband! That’s against the law!
I’ll lose my license! They’ll throw both of us in jail! All kinds of bad things will happen. Absolutely not! You CANNOT have any cyanide!”
The lady reached into her purse and pulled out a picture of her husband in bed with the pharmacist’s wife.
The pharmacist looked at the picture and replied, “Well now. That’s different. You didn’t tell me you had a prescription.”
John Fields
Guest
Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:36 am
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:53:12 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com>
wrote:
Quote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:48:55 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:14:24 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 00:45:16 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
It's easy enough to insert and fix up his post, but most of the time
it's "Why bother?"
Why bother getting a news client that can word wrap when replying? I dunno, ask yourself.
---
Since yours is the source of the problem, why not fix yours?
What causes the problem is irrelevant.
---
You're the cause of the problem, so I'll concede the point and agree
with you.
What _isn't_ irrelevant is the problem itself and the inconvenience it
causes those who wish to reply to your posts.
_Not_ fixing it when, ostensibly, you could with a few key clicks is
raising pig-headedness to a new low and speaks volumes about your
character.
---
Quote:
You may aswell say the invention of the motor vehicle cause Mr Bloggs
to die yesterday, so let's all go sue Henry Ford.
---
That's not the same thing at all.
Mr. Ford's philosophy mandated that the mistakes he made be fixed as
they were found, in the field, while yours seems to be that your readers
are responsible for finding work-around solutions to your errors.
JF
John Fields
Guest
Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:44 am
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:53:30 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com>
wrote:
Quote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:52:46 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:19:04 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 01:06:26 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:35:28 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:
He was deeply in love. When she spoke, he thought he heard bells, as if
she were a dustcart reversing.
---
leaving you alone again, naturally?
What?
Huh?
I did not follow your response to my sig.
---
Really?
That's sad, but just like it's not your problem to set the line wrap
when you post, it's not my problem to learn you up.
JF
Peter Hucker
Guest
Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:36 pm
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:36:12 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:53:12 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:48:55 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:14:24 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 00:45:16 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
It's easy enough to insert and fix up his post, but most of the time
it's "Why bother?"
Why bother getting a news client that can word wrap when replying? I dunno, ask yourself.
---
Since yours is the source of the problem, why not fix yours?
What causes the problem is irrelevant.
---
You're the cause of the problem, so I'll concede the point and agree
with you.
No, the people who can't interpret a non-carriage returned line are the problem.
Quote:
What _isn't_ irrelevant is the problem itself and the inconvenience it
causes those who wish to reply to your posts.
They can get decent software.
Quote:
_Not_ fixing it when, ostensibly, you could with a few key clicks is
raising pig-headedness to a new low and speaks volumes about your
character.
It wouldn't be "fixing" it, it would be "changing" it. I don't want narrow columns of text on my wide screen.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com
____
_[]_/____\__n_
|_____.--.__()_|
|LI //# \\ |
| \\__// |
| '--' |
'--------------'
Peter Hucker
Guest
Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:36 pm
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:44:33 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:53:30 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:52:46 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:19:04 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 01:06:26 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:35:28 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:
---
leaving you alone again, naturally?
What?
Huh?
I did not follow your response to my sig.
---
Really?
That's sad, but just like it's not your problem to set the line wrap
when you post, it's not my problem to learn you up.
Posting a joke that the victim doesn't understand defeats the purpose.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com
Microsoft: This company has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down.
krw
Guest
Wed Feb 11, 2009 11:39 pm
In article <op.uo7fjiin4buhsv_at_i7>, none_at_spam.com says...>
Quote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:44:33 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:53:30 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:52:46 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:19:04 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 01:06:26 -0000, John Fields <jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:35:28 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none_at_spam.com
wrote:
---
leaving you alone again, naturally?
What?
Huh?
I did not follow your response to my sig.
---
Really?
That's sad, but just like it's not your problem to set the line wrap
when you post, it's not my problem to learn you up.
Posting a joke that the victim doesn't understand defeats the purpose.
Kinda defeats the purpose of every replying to you.
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
