Questions about WalMart Lindows Laptop
jwal...@hotmail.com
Does anybody have first-hand experience with the $498 Linspire Laptop
from WalMart? I'm on a very tight budget, but of course I don't want
to buy one and then find out that it's a total piece of junk!
My main application would be to surf the Internet via WiFi while I'm
traveling, and to send & receive Email; and maybe to store digital
photos. Then I would want to download the stuff to my desktop when I
got home.
My three biggest questions are:
A.) If I decide that I don't like Lindows, will I be able to install a
more conventional Distro instead -- or maybe a dual-boot??
B.) How is the mechanical quality of the hardware? Will the CDROM drive
burn out in a few months, and the keys start sticking, etc., etc.?
C.) Does it support 802.11g ?
Thanx in Advance, john w.
(jwallacq AT hotmail DOT com)
P.S. > One more general question about Lindows: Does Lindows-4.5 even
allow you to log on as 'root' and install generic Linux applications,
or does it force you to use their fee-based downloading service?
Alan Gauton
jwal...@hotmail.com says...
>
> P.S. > One more general question about Lindows: Does Lindows-4.5 even
> allow you to log on as 'root' and install generic Linux applications,
> or does it force you to use their fee-based downloading service?
I don't live in the US, so I'm guessing the spec etc, but aiui Lindows
basically runs everything as root by default. Which is obviously one of
the main criticisms.
--
AG
Remove removes from address to remove anti-spam measures.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Gauton E-Mail agauton @ postmaster.co.uk
Never for me the lowered banner, never the last endeavour!
(Damon Hill - 16th June 1999)
BillW50
<jwal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112882992.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Date: 7 Apr 2005 07:09:52 -0700
Does anybody have first-hand experience with the $498 Linspire
Laptop from WalMart? I'm on a very tight budget, but of course I
don't want to buy one and then find out that it's a total piece of
junk!
Well I don't have any first hand experience with it. But I did notice
that there isn't any mention of having a PC Card (PCMCIA) slot. Which
sounds like it doesn't have one. If that's the case, then you could only
WiFi (if it works at all), is off of the USB ports. Which means it
wouldn't be too portable.
Cheers!
___________________________________________
Bill (using a HP AMD 1.2GHZ & Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within Word 2000
SINNER
>
> <jwal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1112882992.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Date: 7 Apr 2005 07:09:52 -0700
>
> Does anybody have first-hand experience with the $498
> Linspire Laptop from WalMart? I'm on a very tight budget, but
> of course I don't want to buy one and then find out that it's
> a total piece of junk!
>
> Well I don't have any first hand experience with it. But I did
> notice that there isn't any mention of having a PC Card (PCMCIA)
> slot. Which sounds like it doesn't have one. If that's the case,
> then you could only WiFi (if it works at all), is off of the USB
> ports. Which means it wouldn't be too portable.
Why is USB WiFi any less portable than PCMCIA WiFI?
--
David
BillW50
"SINNER" <arcade...@googlemail.net> wrote in message
news:Xns963173756982AL...@140.99.99.130...
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 16:18:20 GMT
* BillW50 Wrote in comp.os.linux:
> Well I don't have any first hand experience with it. But I did
> notice that there isn't any mention of having a PC Card (PCMCIA)
> slot. Which sounds like it doesn't have one. If that's the case,
> then you could only WiFi (if it works at all), is off of the USB
> ports. Which means it wouldn't be too portable.
Why is USB WiFi any less portable than PCMCIA WiFI?
Hi David... Well the nice thing about wireless is you don't have to use
the computer being tied to one spot. As you can pick up the laptop and
travel basically anywhere without wires and/or entanglements. And that
is what I mean by being less portable.
I don't like using my laptop without a mouse for example. Although when
I want to be truly mobile (and often I do), that thing has to go. But
having a WiFi gizmo hanging off of the USB would even be far worse. See
what I mean now?
SINNER
>
> "SINNER" <arcade...@googlemail.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns963173756982AL...@140.99.99.130...
> Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 16:18:20 GMT
>
> * BillW50 Wrote in comp.os.linux:
>> Well I don't have any first hand experience with it. But I did
>> notice that there isn't any mention of having a PC Card (PCMCIA)
>> slot. Which sounds like it doesn't have one. If that's the case,
>> then you could only WiFi (if it works at all), is off of the USB
>> ports. Which means it wouldn't be too portable.
>
> Why is USB WiFi any less portable than PCMCIA WiFI?
>
> Hi David... Well the nice thing about wireless is you don't have
> to use the computer being tied to one spot.
Indeed. I use it on my home network and have been for a couple of
years now. I also have BOTH types of WiFi adapters USB AND PCMCIA so
I guess I am still missing your point.
> As you can pick up the
> laptop and travel basically anywhere without wires and/or
> entanglements. And that is what I mean by being less portable.
But you can do this with either USB OR PCMCIA, which was my point.
The absense of a PCMCIA slot does not inhibit tha ability to use
wireless access on the laptop, therefore it is no less portable.
>
> I don't like using my laptop without a mouse for example. Although
> when I want to be truly mobile (and often I do), that thing has to
> go. But having a WiFi gizmo hanging off of the USB would even be
> far worse. See what I mean now?
No because my WiFi card sticks out the side of the laptop and the USB
out the back about the same distance. I suppose its a matter of
preference or where you intend to rest the laptop while using it as
to weather or not the antenna will interfere.
--
David
BillW50
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 17:04:06 GMT
* BillW50 Wrote in comp.os.linux:
Indeed. I use it on my home network and have been for a couple of
years now. I also have BOTH types of WiFi adapters USB AND PCMCIA
so I guess I am still missing your point.
Hi David!
... But you can do this with either USB OR PCMCIA, which was my
point. The absense of a PCMCIA slot does not inhibit tha ability to
use wireless access on the laptop, therefore it is no less
portable.
... No because my WiFi card sticks out the side of the laptop and
the USB out the back about the same distance. I suppose its a
matter of preference or where you intend to rest the laptop while
using it as to weather or not the antenna will interfere.
Okay your USB WiFi must be a lot different than the ones I have seen. If
so, got a web site with pictures so I can take a look at them (or it)?
As the ones I've seen doesn't sound like the nifty one that you have. As
these are with a USB cable running to what kind of looks like a cordless
phone base with a rubber duck antenna.
Wiseguy
>
> Does anybody have first-hand experience with the $498 Linspire Laptop
> from WalMart? I'm on a very tight budget, but of course I don't want
> to buy one and then find out that it's a total piece of junk!
tell you something right away, right?
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
BillW50
"Wiseguy" <no...@uber.usachoice.net> wrote in message
news:425578b5$1...@127.0.0.1...Date: 7 Apr 2005 13:15:17 -0500
> Does anybody have first-hand experience with the $498 Linspire Laptop
> from WalMart? I'm on a very tight budget, but of course I don't want
> to buy one and then find out that it's a total piece of junk!
It's being sold at Wal-fart and only costs 500 buckazoids. That
should tell you something right away, right?
Hehehe... I wanted to say that, but I held back from calling it a piece
of crap! Although if I only had 500 bucks to spend on a laptop, I'd buy
a well known used laptop that would blow that thing out of the water
anyway.
SINNER
> Okay your USB WiFi must be a lot different than the ones I have seen. If
> so, got a web site with pictures so I can take a look at them (or it)?
> As the ones I've seen doesn't sound like the nifty one that you have. As
> these are with a USB cable running to what kind of looks like a cordless
> phone base with a rubber duck antenna.
So small they fit on a keychain:
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?sku=A0099856&cs=19&c=us&l=en
I actually have that one (payed less) and it comes with an extender if
necessary. Pretty cool little device but they are quite common recently.
--
David
A gleekzorp without a tornpee is like a quop without a fertsneet (sort of).
GccTxs
Inspiron 1150 Notebook: Intel Celeron 2.60GHz, 14.1 inch XGA,
Integrated Intel Extreme Graphics, NIC & Modem
Microsoft Windows XP Home
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
System Price $594.00
Promotion Discount ($25.00)
Discounted Price $569.00
Dell recommends Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional
Operating System: Microsoft Windows XP Home
Memory: 256 MB DDR SDRAM 266MHz (1 DIMM)
Hard Disk Drive: 30 GB EIDE Hard Drive (4200 RPM)
NoteBook Screen: 14.1 inch XGA Notebook Screen
Modem: Internal Modem
Network Interface Card: Internal NIC
CD Read-Write Drive: 24X CD RW/DVD Combo Drive
"BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote in message
news:T1f5e.20128$DW.1...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
Wiseguy
please don't top-post!
Michael Lee
> please don't top-post!
I tend to top-post when I'm replying to someone who already did, and I
use proper etiquette when I'm the 1st to reply or when I'm replying to
someone who already replied correctly.
BillW50
"Michael Lee" <gte...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote in message
news:d38vvs$cv8$3...@news-int.gatech.edu...
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 12:30:57 -0400
Wiseguy wrote:
> please don't top-post!
What's the problem with top posting? As bottom posting you have to weed
through the pages to see someone say something at the tail end like
"Yeah that really sucks!" If they just top post, they could have saved
me (and many others) all of that trouble.
BillW50
"SINNER" <99nesorjd@gates_of_hell.invalid> wrote in message
news:gvtgi2x...@news.gates_of_hell.com...
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 23:57:20 GMT
* BillW50 wrote in comp.os.linux:
> Okay your USB WiFi must be a lot different than the ones I have
> seen. If so, got a web site with pictures so I can take a look at
> them (or it)? As the ones I've seen doesn't sound like the nifty
> one that you have. As these are with a USB cable running to what
> kind of looks like a cordless phone base with a rubber duck
> antenna.
So small they fit on a keychain:
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?sku=A0099856&cs=19&c=us&l=en
I actually have that one (payed less) and it comes with an extender
if necessary. Pretty cool little device but they are quite common
recently.
Hi David... Oh they look just like thumb drives! Okay I gotcha now.
<grin>
Trent Buck
> What's the problem with top posting? As bottom posting you have to weed
> through the pages to see someone say something at the tail end like
> "Yeah that really sucks!" If they just top post, they could have saved
> me (and many others) all of that trouble.
It's the bottom-poster's responsibility to crop the quoted text. A
half-dozen quoted lines (as above) does not requirie scrolling down,
even on a 80x25 terminal.
I might add that "me too"ing any post is generally considered bad form,
regardless of the top/bottom-nature or the length of the post.
--
Trent Buck, Student Errant
Math is for kids who can't get by on looks and trench coats alone.
Just Me
--
that my two cents worth but, I suppose, that's
Just Me
"Michael Lee" <gte...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote in message
news:d38vvs$cv8$3...@news-int.gatech.edu...
--> AW
gotta be miserable!
"Wiseguy" <no...@uber.usachoice.net> wrote in message
news:4255f6fc$1...@127.0.0.1...
Michael Lee
> Wiseguy---you are ANAL! I bet you have no wife or kids...if you do, they've
> gotta be miserable!
It's proper etiquette to bottom post and it's the bottom-poster's
responsibility to crop the previous post if it's too long so readers
don't have to scroll too much. Top posting only became popular about 10
years ago when the mass started using the internet. Ordinary, clueless
people quote all the article and just post on top cuz it's easier.
aka top posters are newbies
chris
Also, the Windows news clients tend to put the cursor at the top of the
existing text by default, and if MS put it there it *must* be right!
Chris
--
MS - broken and non-compliant software for a Unix world!
Chris F.A. Johnson
>
> Also, the Windows news clients tend to put the cursor at the top of the
> existing text by default, and if MS put it there it *must* be right!
It's right, despite being the behaviour of MS products; it's also
the behaviour I see with slrn.
The sensible way to respond to a post is neither to top post or
bottom post, but to put the response after the relevant section
of the previous post.
That often amounts to bottom posting, but on a long post the
response is usually best interleaved. This means starting at the
top and inserting replies at the appropriate points. Starting at
the bottom makes no more sense than top posting.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson http://cfaj.freeshell.org
=================================================================
Everything in moderation -- including moderation
Just Me
Mine defaults to the top.... hence that is where I write..... As for
Wiseguy.... he's so full of shit he must tremble in front of a box of Exlax
for fear of disappearing.....
--
that my two cents worth but, I suppose, that's
Just Me
"Michael Lee" <gte...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote in message
news:d3crqc$9lp$1...@news-int2.gatech.edu...
SINNER
> Mine defaults to the top.... hence that is where I write.....
Top posting because thats where your cursor is, is like shitting in
your pants because thats where your asshole is.
--
David
Michael Lee
> Top posting because thats where your cursor is, is like shitting in
> your pants because thats where your asshole is.
Haha, i would have to agree w/that. It doesn't matter where the cursor
is.
Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> The sensible way to respond to a post is neither to top post or
> bottom post, but to put the response after the relevant section
> of the previous post.
>
> That often amounts to bottom posting, but on a long post the
> response is usually best interleaved. This means starting at the
> top and inserting replies at the appropriate points. Starting at
> the bottom makes no more sense than top posting.
I'd have to say Chris's explanation makes the most sense in this thread.
In the end, it still amounts to posting underneath whatever you're
quoting.
BillW50
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 15:22:38 -0400
SINNER wrote:
> Top posting because thats where your cursor is, is like shitting in
> your pants because thats where your asshole is.
ML> Haha, i would have to agree w/that. It doesn't matter where the
ML> cursor is.
Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> The sensible way to respond to a post is neither to top post or
> bottom post, but to put the response after the relevant section
> of the previous post.
>
> That often amounts to bottom posting, but on a long post the
> response is usually best interleaved. This means starting at the
> top and inserting replies at the appropriate points. Starting at
> the bottom makes no more sense than top posting.
ML> I'd have to say Chris's explanation makes the most sense in this
ML> thread. In the end, it still amounts to posting underneath whatever
ML> you're quoting.
I started using USENET back in '84 and this was the proper way to quote
way back then. But virtually nobody knows the proper net etiquette
anymore. And I see you *all* as amateurs. <grin>
Notan
>
> <snip>
>
> I started using USENET back in '84 and this was the proper way to quote
> way back then. But virtually nobody knows the proper net etiquette
> anymore. And I see you *all* as amateurs. <grin>
I don't think it's not knowing, but, rather, not caring.
Notan
SINNER
> I started using USENET back in '84 and this was the proper way to
> quote way back then.
Didnt they all use standard quote characters back then?
--
David
BillW50
"Notan" <no...@ddress.com> wrote in message
news:425AD5D8...@ddress.com...
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 13:54:00 -0600
BW> I started using USENET back in '84 and this was the proper way to
BW> quote way back then. But virtually nobody knows the proper net
BW> etiquette anymore. And I see you *all* as amateurs. <grin>
N> I don't think it's not knowing, but, rather, not caring.
Well I don't believe I can expect many others to know how things were
done way back then. As most of them weren't using computers back then.
On the other hand, we did things that way because it was the best way
back then. Today everything has changed and the old way doesn't
necessarily mean it is still the best way. <grin>
Ivan Marsh
> "Michael Lee" <gte...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote in message
> news:d3eipn$59h$3...@news-int.gatech.edu... Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 15:22:38
> -0400
>
> SINNER wrote:
>
>> Top posting because thats where your cursor is, is like shitting in
>> your pants because thats where your asshole is.
>
> ML> Haha, i would have to agree w/that. It doesn't matter where the ML>
> cursor is.
>
> Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> > The sensible way to respond to a post is neither to top post or
> > bottom post, but to put the response after the relevant section
> > of the previous post.
> >
> > That often amounts to bottom posting, but on a long post the
> > response is usually best interleaved. This means starting at the
> > top and inserting replies at the appropriate points. Starting at
> > the bottom makes no more sense than top posting.
>
> ML> I'd have to say Chris's explanation makes the most sense in this ML>
> thread. In the end, it still amounts to posting underneath whatever ML>
> you're quoting.
>
> I started using USENET back in '84 and this was the proper way to quote
> way back then. But virtually nobody knows the proper net etiquette
> anymore. And I see you *all* as amateurs. <grin>
Wow! Way back in '84? You must have invented the internets (you're not the
oldest person here).
...and, I've never seen a post quoted the way you suggested because there
is no way for a news reader to do what you suggested automagically.
But let's all take the time to make up two letter acronyms for ever person
that posts and make sure that we add that acronym to every line of the
post and all cross our fingers and hope that no one re-word wraps the text
before they post (which I have done for demonstration purposes to show
that the suggestion is complete bullshit).
"Don't top post" is a reasonable enough request I think.
--
Life is short, but wide. -KV
BillW50
"Ivan Marsh" <ann...@you.now> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.04.11....@you.now...
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 15:13:18 -0500
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 19:50:06 +0000, BillW50 wrote:
BW> I started using USENET back in '84 and this was the proper way to
BW> quote way back then. But virtually nobody knows the proper net
BW> etiquette anymore. And I see you *all* as amateurs. <grin>
IM> Wow! Way back in '84? You must have invented the internets (you're
IM> not the oldest person here).
Nope I am not! And the Internet was invented back in '69. And I started
using computers back in '74. Although I wasn't using USENET until '84.
So I was a latecomer back then.
IM> ...and, I've never seen a post quoted the way you suggested because
IM> there is no way for a news reader to do what you suggested
IM> automagically.
They used to do so automatically all of the time. Apparently the
programmers got lazy after a time. Seemed to stop in the early 90's if
you asked me.
IM> But let's all take the time to make up two letter acronyms for ever
IM> person that posts and make sure that we add that acronym to every
IM> line of the post and all cross our fingers and hope that no one re-
IM> word wraps the text before they post (which I have done for
IM> demonstration purposes to show that the suggestion is complete
IM> bullshit).
While I always used VDE or WordStar (nowadays it's mostly MS Word) to
prevent and/or clean it up. There was one guy who was so impressed with
my quoting he had asked what I was using and I told him. He thought I
was using something else. So he created EZQuote which is still
available.
IM> "Don't top post" is a reasonable enough request I think.
I don't believe so. Although I can fully understand why snobbish people
would think so. <grin>
Ivan Marsh
Well, since you're calling people snobbish and passing out backhanded
insults would you please google "usenet history" and point out even a
single instance of a USENET thread that's quoted the way you suggest
everyone was doing it in the olden days? (BTW: google groups has old uucp
messages from '81 in it, all of which are quoted simply with ">"... I
guess someone went through and edited all those old posts to bring them up
to the new standard?).
My guess is that you were using an internal nntp system with a very
specific reader that had nothing to do with usenet proper.
Please read: http://www.vrx.net/usenet/history/
I think it's rather snobbish to tell people how things used to be done
better because we used to do thing right when you clearly don't have any
idea what you're talking about.
...and just for the fun of it... here comes the word wrap!
Joseph Fenn
Rule makeing on such stuff is up to the poster! Do what you want
and be done with it. We have no supreme court here to overrule us.
Kokomo Joe
****************************************************
* Ham KH6JF AARS/MARS ABM6JF QCWA WW2 VET WD RADIO *
* Army MARS State Coordinator for Hawaii *
****************************************************
Notan
>
> All this crap about where to post and how to post is irrelavant!
> Rule makeing on such stuff is up to the poster! Do what you want
> and be done with it. We have no supreme court here to overrule us.
Consistency just makes it a bit easier for the next guy.
But, as you say, do what you want.
Notan
BillW50
"Ivan Marsh" <ann...@you.now> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.04.11....@you.now...
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:43:30 +0000, BillW50 wrote:
> "Ivan Marsh" <ann...@you.now> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.04.11....@you.now... Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005
> 15:13:18 -0500 On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 19:50:06 +0000, BillW50 wrote:
>
> BW> I started using USENET back in '84 and this was the proper way to
> BW> quote way back then. But virtually nobody knows the proper net BW>
> etiquette anymore. And I see you *all* as amateurs. <grin>
>
> IM> Wow! Way back in '84? You must have invented the internets (you're
> IM> not the oldest person here).
>
> Nope I am not! And the Internet was invented back in '69. And I
> started using computers back in '74. Although I wasn't using USENET
> until '84. So I was a latecomer back then.
IM> ...and, I've never seen a post quoted the way you suggested
IM> because there is no way for a news reader to do what you suggested
IM> automagically.
Well maybe... as those on USENET were *never* as smart as those on
Fidonet. As Fidonet was the hobbyist who knew what they were doing.
While USENET was mostly people who didn't know what they were doing. And
we used this type of quoting all of the time. And we had USENET to learn
what the simple minded people were up to. Although we used the same type
of quoting for both Fidonet and USENET.
My guess is that you were using an internal nntp system with a very
specific reader that had nothing to do with usenet proper.
Please read: http://www.vrx.net/usenet/history/
I did, now I have a lower opinion of USENET than I had remembered.
I think it's rather snobbish to tell people how things used to be
done better because we used to do thing right when you clearly
don't have any idea what you're talking about.
Oh I know plenty of what I am talking about. And I am sorry if snobbish
people feel insulted by calling them snobs! What would they rather be
called? Your highness, perhaps? <grin>
...and just for the fun of it... here comes the word wrap!
Where?
BillW50
"Joseph Fenn" <jf...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSI.4.61.05...@malasada.lava.net...
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:37:56 -1000
All this crap about where to post and how to post is irrelavant!
Rule makeing on such stuff is up to the poster! Do what you want
and be done with it. We have no supreme court here to overrule us.
I totally agree with you Joe! There are people who don't like someone
else not doing it their way. And I usually find most of them are just
nothing more than snobs!
Ivan Marsh
Don't top post.
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:37:56 -1000, Joseph Fenn wrote:
> All this crap about where to post and how to post is irrelavant!
> Rule makeing on such stuff is up to the poster!
If you think that's true then prepare for all of your posts to be turned
into nothing but top-posting flame wars... like this one has become.
> Do what you want and be done with it.
It's always nice to hear from another member of the church of satan.
Welcome brother.
> We have no supreme court here to overrule us.
We DO however have RFC1855. Read it or STFU.
BillW50
"Ivan Marsh" <ann...@you.now> wrote in message
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:15:46 -0500
I agree... oh wait, no I don't... look how fucked up this post is
now!
Don't top post.
It just figures, doesn't it?
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:37:56 -1000, Joseph Fenn wrote:
> All this crap about where to post and how to post is irrelavant!
> Rule makeing on such stuff is up to the poster!
If you think that's true then prepare for all of your posts to be
turned into nothing but top-posting flame wars... like this one has
become.
Only for the snobs who wants everything their way!
> Do what you want and be done with it.
It's always nice to hear from another member of the church of
satan. Welcome brother.
I never thought much of religious groups, but I admit they hold the
church of satan at bay. So I guess they do some service after all.
<grin>
> We have no supreme court here to overrule us.
We DO however have RFC1855. Read it or STFU.
Which you had repeatable violated section 2.1.1 for starters. Is this
one of those church of satan tricks to lie and deceive?
R.F. Pels
<snip>
Quote.
Do not toppost.
Don't be a moron.
--
Ruurd
.o.
..o
ooo
chris
> "Joseph Fenn" <jf...@lava.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.BSI.4.61.05...@malasada.lava.net...
> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:37:56 -1000
>
> All this crap about where to post and how to post is irrelavant!
> Rule makeing on such stuff is up to the poster! Do what you want
> and be done with it. We have no supreme court here to overrule us.
>
> I totally agree with you Joe! There are people who don't like someone
> else not doing it their way. And I usually find most of them are just
> nothing more than snobs!
It's nonsense - the obviously correct way to answer a post is at the bottom
- but if you're too dense to see that, you'll be surprised to discover that
a large proportion of your posts are ignored. "Snobbery" has nothing to do
with it; bottom posting allows more logical debate.
C.
--
A. Because it breaks the logical flow of conversation.
Q. Why not top post?
Just Me
up, also.
--
that my two cents worth but, I suppose, that's
Just Me
"SINNER" <arcade...@googlemail.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9635609873ABAL...@140.99.99.130...
Ivan Marsh
> "Ivan Marsh" <ann...@you.now> wrote in message
>
> We DO however have RFC1855. Read it or STFU.
>
> Which you had repeatable violated section 2.1.1 for starters. Is this
> one of those church of satan tricks to lie and deceive?
2.1.1 refers to e-mail, I repeatably violate 3.1.1; and at the point
people take the stance that top-posting is fine I consider myself free to
do anything. See what happens when people don't follow rules?... anarchy!
...and for anyone who thinks top-posting isn't in the RFC, you haven't
read it:
"If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just enough
text of the original to give a context. This will make sure readers
understand when they start to read your response. Since NetNews,
especially, is proliferated by distributing the postings from one host to
another, it is possible to see a response to a message before seeing the
original. Giving context helps everyone. But do not include the entire
original!"
...and no, the church of satan believes in complete honesty and personal
responsibility. "Do what you will." does not exclude accepting
consequences. BTW, I'm not a member, just a fan of the philosophy.
Joseph Fenn
flows merrily on
Joe (aka kilroy)
SINNER
> No comparison at all.....
Perfect comparison.
>do you write your correspondence from the bottom
> up, also.
I dont 'bottom' post so why would that matter?
--
David
Simulations are like miniskirts, they show a lot and hide the essentials.
-- Hubert Kirrman
Ivan Marsh
> As I said before "irrrelevancy" is the order of the day. And
> flows merrily on
> Joe (aka kilroy)
If you think so.
*plonk*
Shadow_7
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product_id=3504708&cat=179113&type=19&dept=3944
VIA C3 processor 1.0 GHz
14.1" LCD panel
128 MB memory
30 GB hard drive
CD-ROM drive
4 USB 2.0 ports
4 cell battery
Battery delivers more than 1.5 hours of usage time
Lindows/Linspire version 4.5
I could probably get 2x's the hardware specs for about $50.00 more than
that. At least a DVD player/burner, not just a cdrom drive. Not to
mention a fair video card and 2x's the ram. Plus a floppy drive,
firewire, pcmcia, etc. Those specs are probably approaching a laptop that
was new about five years ago.
Shadow_7