Responding on top
Ganesh J. Acharya
will be wise responding on top of the messages rather bottom.
David Hare-Scott
> Responding on top. With the invention of new mobile gadgets I think it
> will be wise responding on top of the messages rather bottom.
Why?
David
Will in New Haven
> Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
of the discussion.
Why do imbeciles top-post.
> > Responding on top. With the invention of new mobile gadgets I think it
> > will be wise responding �on top of the messages rather bottom.
Because
> Why?
It completely
--
Will in New Haven
Ganesh J. Acharya
The mobile phone that I have only opens only 512 characters when
editing. The message below 512 characters are cut.
r norman
So don't use your mobile phone to access usenet.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Ganesh J. Acharya"
<ganeshj...@gmail.com>:
>On Mar 9, 5:32�pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>> > Responding on top. With the invention of new mobile gadgets I think it
>> > will be wise responding �on top of the messages rather bottom.
>>
>> Why?
>The mobile phone that I have only opens only 512 characters when
>editing. The message below 512 characters are cut.
So? The limitations of your gadgets are your problem.
Top-posting is both confusing and inelegant; responses
should follow the text to which the response applies.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Stephen
> Responding on top. With the invention of new mobile gadgets I think it
> will be wise responding on top of the messages rather bottom.
Because it reverses the natural flow of the conversation.
why?
Top-posting.
What is the most annoying habit in usenet or email msgs?
--
Richard Harter
Below is yet another example of a fallacious argument against top
posting. The argument presumes that usenet and email messages
have the same natural flow as verbal conversations. This is not
a given. Blogs and other forms of on line social communications
quite wisely reserve this archaic format for special situations
in which there actually is a short sequence of commentary.
How often do we see long passages of quoted material with minor
followup annotations interpolated into the text. Such messages,
all too common on talk.origins, are not effective communication.
There is situations where top posting is appropriate, and
situations where it is not.
What is never appropriate is hectoring based on antediluvian
prejudices.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
It's not much to ask of the universe that it be fair;
it's not much to ask but it just doesn't happen.
Mike Lyle
Well, in that case, you'll probably have to stop using a telephone to do
a computer's job. Top-posting is difficult enough to follow even with a
full screen; without relevant quoted material, it will be pretty well
incomprehensible, and most readers will stop trying.
--
Mike.
John Wilkins
In article <4b96cb43....@text.giganews.com>, Richard Harter
chris thompson
wrote:
> Responding on top. With the invention of new mobile gadgets I think it
> will be wise responding �on top of the messages rather bottom.
There are groups where it is considered polite to top-post. This is
not one of them.
Chris
r norman
wrote:
Just the usual nonsense in favor of the abominable practice of
top-posting.
If you are not actively following a particular thread then it is
absolutely necessary to read information leading up to any particular
reply and top posting makes that will nigh impossible.
And unless you are some sort of obsessive maniac, actively following
every thread here on t.o. is quite out of the question.
Emai is a totally different application, used in a totally different
way and parallels simply do not apply.
So, please, please, please bottom post!!!
Scott Balneaves
> will be wise responding on top of the messages rather bottom.
Because it impedes the normal flow of reading conversations.
> Why is top posting a bad idea?
r norman
Top posting is a good idea only if you are sure the reader knows the
full context of the conversation to date. That is a terrible
assumption to make for readers perusing news group postings.
John Wilkins
<r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
*sigh*
My humour doesn't work well on Usenet. Actually, my humour doesn't work
well, period.
By top posting I was implying I didn't know what had happened upthread,
because I hadn't read it... look, just ignore it, okay? Geez. Tough
audience...
r norman
wrote:
Actually, John, for you that was very funny. A veritable thigh
slapper!
John Wilkins
<r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
Hence my point about my humour...
el cid
nor particularly Roman.
On Mar 9, 7:44�pm, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> In article <bamdp55ohfdjgut8ont0rmhs030akgi...@4ax.com>, r norman
>
>
>
>
>
> <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:14:15 +1000, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au>
> > wrote:
>
> > >What are you talking about?
>
> > >In article <4b96cb43.896013...@text.giganews.com>, Richard Harter
chris thompson
chris thompson
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 23:58:43 +0000 (UTC), Scott Balneaves
>
> >Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Responding on top. With the invention of new mobile gadgets I think it
> >> will be wise responding �on top of the messages rather bottom.
>
> >Because it impedes the normal flow of reading conversations.
>
> >> Why is top posting a bad idea?
>
> Top posting is a good idea only if you are sure the reader knows the
> full context of the conversation to date. �That is a terrible
> assumption to make for readers perusing �news group postings.
If you combine this thread title with just a little consideration of
reproductive success (simply to make it on-topic of course) we can
speculate on the merits of posting on top, as opposed to posting on
bottom, or even posting side-by-side. ITSM that posting on top can be
done on almost any kind of computer given appropriate placement, while
posting on bottom pretty much rules out a desktop. You would need some
kind of laptop or notebook, the lighter the better. Also, it would be
much easier all around for a male to post on bottom than a female
(N.B.: I am only discussing heterosexual couplings, since those are
the only ones that can potentially involve reproductive success (in a
biological sense- don't get into bonding and kin selection etc.
please)). However, positioning a notebook in an appropriate position,
obscuring salient anatomical features of the partner, might well
impinge on the prospects of reproductive success (leaving aside any
other apps you might have running on the notebook, of course).
Lateral posting would be interesting. Obviously, all sorts of
permutations are possible, even likely given sufficient youth, energy,
and flexibility. Several different types of machines can be used in
lateral posting, also- up to and including WebTV, if you can bring
yourself to pause the DVD.
Chris
Boikat
Boikat
Or, to put it another way; Who do you think *you* are, that you think
wveryone should change their posting style, just because you use a
access device that is not adequate for the task?
Boikat
Cory Albrecht
Then perhaps you need to use a more appropriate posting platform..
Cory Albrecht
But Caesar, like many Graeco-Romans, liked to be on bottom, too.
Cory Albrecht
> Responding on top. With the invention of new mobile gadgets I think it
> will be wise responding on top of the messages rather bottom.
>
Says who? It's perfectly possible to interleave one's responses with the
quotes even with a mobile phone or other small screen gadget.
Top-posting is illogical as the response come before the original,
opposite to how the conversation is actually flowing. It forces a new
joiner to the thread to scroll to the bottom of a post and read it in
chunks, backwards, to see what has already been said. Top-posting goes
counter to the normal flow of reading.
Interleaving your response also makes it more clear to which parts of
the post you are replying to, because you might agree with one paragraph
but disagree with the next.
Did you ever stop and wonder why this format evolved over the many
decades of Usenet's existence?
Cory Albrecht
You philosophers just make everything too darn complicated, what with
requiring us to actually think and examine our prejudices and assumptions.
In reality, this whole issue can be boiled down to one simple question:
Do you top or bottom?
:-)
chris thompson
> chris thompson wrote, on 10-03-09 10:00 PM:
>
>
>
>
> > But they were on top for a long time...
>
> >> Well the Holy Roman Empire was neither particularly Holy
> >> nor particularly Roman.
>
> >>>> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:14:15 +1000, John Wilkins<j...@wilkins.id.au>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> What are you talking about?
>
> >>>>> In article<4b96cb43.896013...@text.giganews.com>, Richard Harter
>
> >>>>>> Below is yet another example of a fallacious argument against top
> >>>>>> posting. The argument presumes that usenet and email messages
> >>>>>> have the same natural flow as verbal conversations. This is not
> >>>>>> a given. Blogs and other forms of on line social communications
> >>>>>> quite wisely reserve this archaic format for special situations
> >>>>>> in which there actually is a short sequence of commentary.
>
> >>>>>> How often do we see long passages of quoted material with minor
> >>>>>> followup annotations interpolated into the text. Such messages,
> >>>>>> all too common on talk.origins, are not effective communication.
> >>>>>> There is situations where top posting is appropriate, and
> >>>>>> situations where it is not.
>
> >>>>>> What is never appropriate is hectoring based on antediluvian
> >>>>>> prejudices.
>
> >>>>>> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 20:19:22 +0000 (UTC), "Stephen"
>
> >>>>>>> Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> Responding on top. With the invention of new mobile gadgets I think it
> >>>>>>>> will be wise responding on top of the messages rather bottom.
>
> >>>>>>> Because it reverses the natural flow of the conversation.
> >>>>>>> why?
> >>>>>>> Top-posting.
> >>>>>>> What is the most annoying habit in usenet or email msgs?
>
> >>>> Just the usual nonsense in favor of the abominable practice of
> >>>> top-posting.
>
> >>>> If you are not actively following a particular thread then it is
> >>>> absolutely necessary to read information leading up to any particular
> >>>> reply and top posting makes that will nigh impossible.
>
> >>>> And unless you are some sort of obsessive maniac, actively following
> >>>> every thread here on t.o. is quite out of the question.
>
> >>>> Emai is a totally different application, used in a totally different
> >>>> way and parallels simply do not apply.
>
> >>>> So, please, please, please bottom post!!!
>
> >>> *sigh*
>
> >>> My humour doesn't work well on Usenet. Actually, my humour doesn't work
> >>> well, period.
>
> >>> By top posting I was implying I didn't know what had happened upthread,
> >>> because I hadn't read it... look, just ignore it, okay? Geez. Tough
> >>> audience...
>
> But Caesar, like many Graeco-Romans, liked to be on bottom, too.
But now you're talking holey, not Holy.
Chris
Ganesh J. Acharya
the msg
On Mar 9, 7:48�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 08:18:51 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Ganesh J. Acharya"
r norman
(continued where it should be continue)
Somebody always manages to eke out an interesting new interpretation.
Put a new twist on it, so to speak, except that introducing torque
raises all sorts of new complications.
Ganesh J. Acharya
top post so this is the very reason... i guess
Stephen
[...snip...]
>
> How often do we see long passages of quoted material with minor
> followup annotations interpolated into the text. Such messages,
> all too common on talk.origins, are not effective communication.
>
Trim
[...snip rest ...]
--
Ganesh J. Acharya
latest response even with litte mobile
On Mar 10, 5:15�am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
wrote
Richard Harter
Nothing is considered polite in talk.origins because nothing is
polite. In fact, it is impolite to be polite.
John Wilkins
John Wilkins
<c...@tiac.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 15:21:02 -0800 (PST), chris thompson
> <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 8, 9:51�pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >> Responding on top. With the invention of new mobile gadgets I think it
> >> will be wise responding �on top of the messages rather bottom.
> >
> >There are groups where it is considered polite to top-post. This is
> >not one of them.
>
> Nothing is considered polite in talk.origins because nothing is
> polite. In fact, it is impolite to be polite.
>
Keep a civil keyboard on your lap!
Michael Siemon
John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
Very sharp of you. One hopes it doesn't fall flat. But that is a minor
concern. You could plead diminished capacity.
John Wilkins
<mlsiemon-757B93...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
Michael Siemon <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote:
I had hoped to stave off such bass canards. Give it a rest, two three
four.
Michael Siemon
John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
I quaver in fear.
John Wilkins
<mlsiemon-97A8A8...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
Michael Siemon <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote:
In time. In time. But I apologise for being so crotchetty. I'm in
something of a fugue. Concentration! That's the key!
Michael Siemon
John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
At the risk (extremely slight, to be sure) of disrupting a pun cascade,
I waxed nostalgic (let's not go where Groucho might with that wording)
on the "rest, two, three, four". As a trumpet player in the school
orchestra, with lots of classical pieces, I got lots of "practice" with
"23, two, three, four; 24, two, three, four; ...". As a budding mathe-
matician with a constitutional objection to counting beyond three, this
was sometimes a bit embarrassing...
John Wilkins
<mlsiemon-D1F19F...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
Michael Siemon <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote:
Well of course. If you want somebody to count, get an accountant to
play the trumpet.
Tristan Miller
In article <news:a2cefaf3-10d4-4095-
b897-258...@k2g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
> On Mar 9, 5:32 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>> > Responding on top. With the invention of new mobile gadgets I think it
>> > will be wise responding on top of the messages rather bottom.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> David
>
> The mobile phone that I have only opens only 512 characters when
> editing. The message below 512 characters are cut.
With the invention of new mobile gadgets which can handle more than 512
characters, I think it will be wise to keep bottom-posting.
Why should we all modify our posting behaviour to cater for your antiquated
technology?
Regards,
Tristan
--
_
_V.-o Tristan Miller >< Space is limited
/ |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- <> In a haiku, so it's hard
(7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ >< To finish what you
Burkhard
> In article <bamdp55ohfdjgut8ont0rmhs030akgi...@4ax.com>, r norman
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:14:15 +1000, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au>
> > wrote:
>
> > >What are you talking about?
>
> > ><c...@tiac.net> wrote:
>
> > >> Below is yet another example of a fallacious argument against top
> > >> posting. �The argument presumes that usenet and email messages
> > >> have the same natural flow as verbal conversations. �This is not
> > >> a given. �Blogs and other forms of on line social communications
> > >> quite wisely reserve this archaic format for special situations
> > >> in which there actually is a short sequence of commentary.
>
> > >> How often do we see long passages of quoted material with minor
> > >> followup annotations interpolated into the text. �Such messages,
> > >> all too common on talk.origins, are not effective communication.
> > >> There is situations where top posting is appropriate, and
> > >> situations where it is not.
>
> > >> What is never appropriate is hectoring based on antediluvian
> > >> prejudices. �
>
> > >> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 20:19:22 +0000 (UTC), "Stephen"
>
> > >> >Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>
> > >> >> Responding on top. With the invention of new mobile gadgets I think it
> > >> >> will be wise responding �on top of the messages rather bottom.
>
> > >> >why?
> > >> >Top-posting.
> > >> >What is the most annoying habit in usenet or email msgs?
>
> > Just the usual nonsense in favor of the abominable practice of
> > top-posting.
>
> > If you are not actively following a particular thread then it is
> > absolutely necessary to read information leading up to any particular
> > reply and top posting makes that will nigh impossible.
>
> > And unless you are some sort of obsessive maniac, actively following
> > every thread here on t.o. is quite out of the question.
>
> > Emai is a totally different application, used in a totally different
> > way and parallels simply do not apply.
>
> > So, please, please, please bottom post!!!
>
> *sigh*
>
> My humour doesn't work well on Usenet. Actually, my humour doesn't work
> well, period.
>
> By top posting I was implying I didn't know what had happened upthread,
> because I hadn't read it... look, just ignore it, okay? Geez. Tough
> audience...
I found it very funny. But then i also thought this entire thread
was about sex...
Burkhard
>
>
>
> Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > In article <100320101531432639%j...@wilkins.id.au>,> > > <mlsiemon-757B93.21240309032...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
> > > Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > > > In article <100320101459014883%j...@wilkins.id.au>,
> > > > �John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > In article <m7gj67xfie....@fenris.cjb.net>, Cory Albrecht> > > > > > > In article<bamdp55ohfdjgut8ont0rmhs030akgi...@4ax.com>, r norman
> > > > > > > <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> �wrote:
>
> > > > > > >> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:14:15 +1000, John
> > > > > > >> wrote:
>
> > > > > > >>> What are you talking about?
>
> > > > > > >>> <c...@tiac.net> �wrote:
>
> > > > > > >>>> Below is yet another example of a fallacious argument against top
> > > > > > >>>> posting. �The argument presumes that usenet and email messages
> > > > > > >>>> have the same natural flow as verbal conversations. �This is not
> > > > > > >>>> a given. �Blogs and other forms of on line social communications
> > > > > > >>>> quite wisely reserve this archaic format for special situations
> > > > > > >>>> in which there actually is a short sequence of commentary.
>
> > > > > > >>>> How often do we see long passages of quoted material with minor
> > > > > > >>>> followup annotations interpolated into the text. �Such messages,
> > > > > > >>>> all too common on talk.origins, are not effective communication.
> > > > > > >>>> There is situations where top posting is appropriate, and
> > > > > > >>>> situations where it is not.
>
> > > > > > >>>> What is never appropriate is hectoring based on antediluvian
> > > > > > >>>> prejudices.
>
> > > > > > >>>> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 20:19:22 +0000 (UTC), "Stephen"
Is nothing here sacred? Harp on about this if you must, I'd say you
better shape up.
John Wilkins
<5a0b7a21-386a-48f4...@i25g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
Everything's about sex...
Mike Lyle
> On 10 Mar, 05:59, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>> In article
>> <mlsiemon-97A8A8.21461109032...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
>>
>>
>>
>> Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> In article <100320101531432639%j...@wilkins.id.au>,
>>> John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>>
>>>> In article
>>>> <mlsiemon-757B93.21240309032...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
>>>> Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> In article <100320101459014883%j...@wilkins.id.au>,
>>>>> John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> In article <m7gj67xfie....@fenris.cjb.net>, Cory Albrecht
>>>>>> <coryalbre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Do you top or bottom?
>>
>>>>>>> :-)
>>
>>>>>> No, I natural.
>>
>>>>> Very sharp of you. One hopes it doesn't fall flat. But that is a
>>>>> minor concern. You could plead diminished capacity.
>>
>>>> I had hoped to stave off such bass canards. Give it a rest, two
>>>> three four.
>>
>>> I quaver in fear.
>>
>> In time. In time. But I apologise for being so crotchetty. I'm in
>> something of a fugue. Concentration! That's the key!
>
> Is nothing here sacred? Harp on about this if you must, I'd say you
> better shape up.
>
--
Mike.
Dick C.
news:7df66c6d-9cc5-498d...@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
In the time I have been on t.o. I have seen the internet go from being
accessible to only universities, government sites, and related businesses
to AOL opening it up. That allowed anyone who had access to a computer to
get on the internet. And then microsoft's pc tv access, which allowed
anyone with a tv and a phone line to access the internet and usenet.
Brains not needed. Now, we are seeing someone with a cell phone trying to
post on usenet. The problem is that these phones are sold to anyone who
has the money to buy one, no brains needed. Hell, the carriers will even
make sure that they work for the user. The user does not even need to be
smart enough to figure out how to do it themselves.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@gmail.com
Max
wrote:
> Responding on top. With the invention of new mobile gadgets I think it
> will be wise responding �on top of the messages rather bottom.
Top posting is great for flame wars. For meaningful, thoughtful post,s
not so much. But how much thought are you putting into posts you're
entering via your phone?
Richard Harter
<ssa...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
Thank you for proving my point.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
Richard Harter
I can't. The cat is sleeping there and I dasn't disturb him.
chris thompson
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 15:21:02 -0800 (PST), chris thompson
>
> >On Mar 8, 9:51 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >> Responding on top. With the invention of new mobile gadgets I think it
> >> will be wise responding on top of the messages rather bottom.
>
> >There are groups where it is considered polite to top-post. This is
> >not one of them.
>
> Nothing is considered polite in talk.origins because nothing is
> polite. In fact, it is impolite to be polite.
Thank you.
Chris
>
> Richard Harter, c...@tiac.nethttp://home.tiac.net/~cri,http://www.varinoma.com
Ganesh J. Acharya
so when i message from mobile i will top post.
Ganesh J. Acharya
again it is what suits best at any moment. tomorrow if more ppl start
texting this way then people will automatically change their ways.
Mitchell Coffey
> In article
> <mlsiemon-97A8A8.21461109032...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
>
>
>
> Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > In article <100320101531432639%j...@wilkins.id.au>,
> > �John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > <mlsiemon-757B93.21240309032...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
> > > Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > > > In article <100320101459014883%j...@wilkins.id.au>,
> > > > �John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > In article <m7gj67xfie....@fenris.cjb.net>, Cory Albrecht
> > > > > > > <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> �wrote:
>
> > > > > > >> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:14:15 +1000, John
> > > > > > >> wrote:
>
> > > > > > >>> What are you talking about?
>
> > > > > > >>> <c...@tiac.net> �wrote:
>
> > > > > > >>>> Below is yet another example of a fallacious argument against top
> > > > > > >>>> posting. �The argument presumes that usenet and email messages
> > > > > > >>>> have the same natural flow as verbal conversations. �This is not
> > > > > > >>>> a given. �Blogs and other forms of on line social communications
> > > > > > >>>> quite wisely reserve this archaic format for special situations
> > > > > > >>>> in which there actually is a short sequence of commentary.
>
> > > > > > >>>> How often do we see long passages of quoted material with minor
> > > > > > >>>> followup annotations interpolated into the text. �Such messages,
> > > > > > >>>> all too common on talk.origins, are not effective communication.
> > > > > > >>>> There is situations where top posting is appropriate, and
> > > > > > >>>> situations where it is not.
>
> > > > > > >>>> What is never appropriate is hectoring based on antediluvian
> > > > > > >>>> prejudices.
>
> > > > > > >>>> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 20:19:22 +0000 (UTC), "Stephen"
This thread strikes a cord! It's way off the scale.
Mitchell
Boikat
wrote:
> because that is what accessibility advicers will generally quote.
> again it is what suits best at any moment. tomorrow if more ppl start
> texting this way then people will automatically change their ways.
And they will be shunned as idiotic fools, too incompetant to use a
real computer. Much like WebTV users.
Boikat
Kleuskes & Moos
wrote:
> would deleting message serve the purpose? no.
>
> so when i message from mobile i will top post.
>
> Max wrote:
> > On Mar 8, 9:51 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Responding on top. With the invention of new mobile gadgets I think it
> > > will be wise responding on top of the messages rather bottom.
>
> > Top posting is great for flame wars. For meaningful, thoughtful post,s
> > not so much. But how much thought are you putting into posts you're
> > entering via your phone?
Ignoring generally accepted netiquette and resorting to gadgets which
deliver only part of the message strangely fits your style of posting
and argumentation.
Boikat
wrote:
> now things are better this way. google groups by default asked ppl to
> top post so this is the very reason... i guess
News flash: Google Groups does not run USNET.
Boikat
Boikat
wrote:
> would deleting message serve the purpose? no.
>
> so when i message from mobile i will top post.
>
Boikat
chris thompson
I thought we were giving up puns for Lent- oh, well.
Chris
Walter Bushell
c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 15:21:02 -0800 (PST), chris thompson
> <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 8, 9:51�pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >> Responding on top. With the invention of new mobile gadgets I think it
> >> will be wise responding �on top of the messages rather bottom.
> >
> >There are groups where it is considered polite to top-post. This is
> >not one of them.
>
> Nothing is considered polite in talk.origins because nothing is
> polite. In fact, it is impolite to be polite.
>
>
> Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
> http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
> It's not much to ask of the universe that it be fair;
> it's not much to ask but it just doesn't happen.
Oh, please!
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Walter Bushell
John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> In article <m7gj67x...@fenris.cjb.net>, Cory Albrecht
> <coryal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > John Wilkins wrote, on 10-03-09 07:44 PM:
> > > In article<bamdp55ohfdjgut8o...@4ax.com>, r norman
> > > <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:14:15 +1000, John Wilkins<jo...@wilkins.id.au>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> What are you talking about?
> > >>>
> > >>> In article<4b96cb43....@text.giganews.com>, Richard Harter
> > >>> <c...@tiac.net> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Below is yet another example of a fallacious argument against top
> > >>>> posting. The argument presumes that usenet and email messages
> > >>>> have the same natural flow as verbal conversations. This is not
> > >>>> a given. Blogs and other forms of on line social communications
> > >>>> quite wisely reserve this archaic format for special situations
> > >>>> in which there actually is a short sequence of commentary.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> How often do we see long passages of quoted material with minor
> > >>>> followup annotations interpolated into the text. Such messages,
> > >>>> all too common on talk.origins, are not effective communication.
> > >>>> There is situations where top posting is appropriate, and
> > >>>> situations where it is not.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> What is never appropriate is hectoring based on antediluvian
> > >>>> prejudices.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 20:19:22 +0000 (UTC), "Stephen"
> > >>>> <ssa...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Responding on top. With the invention of new mobile gadgets I think
> > >>>>>> it
> > >>>>>> will be wise responding on top of the messages rather bottom.
> > >>>>>
That kind of reply makes me quark up.
Walter Bushell
John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
If you don't have it, the chances are great your children won't either.
Walter Bushell
r norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 23:58:43 +0000 (UTC), Scott Balneaves
> <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
>
> >Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Responding on top. With the invention of new mobile gadgets I think it
> >> will be wise responding on top of the messages rather bottom.
> >
> >Because it impedes the normal flow of reading conversations.
> >
> >> Why is top posting a bad idea?
>
> Top posting is a good idea only if you are sure the reader knows the
> full context of the conversation to date. That is a terrible
> assumption to make for readers perusing news group postings.
Especially TO. But, the posts *do* contain a trace back mechanism. In
MT-Newswatcher, for example, cloverleaf-H brings up the previous posts
and one can double click on them to bring them up.
So perhaps more snipage would be indicated as people repost screens of
mostly or completely irrelevant (not to mention irreverent) backstory.
Paul J Gans
>On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 15:21:02 -0800 (PST), chris thompson
><chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Mar 8, 9:51?pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>> Responding on top. With the invention of new mobile gadgets I think it
>>> will be wise responding ?on top of the messages rather bottom.
>>
>>There are groups where it is considered polite to top-post. This is
>>not one of them.
>Nothing is considered polite in talk.origins because nothing is
>polite. In fact, it is impolite to be polite.
Please sir, say not so?
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Walter Bushell
<62e50b43-c7a2-4c9b...@q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Who was that creationist^W idiot who insisted they do?
r norman
wrote:
A LOT more snippage would be very nice.
But what is this "cloverleaf-H" business? Neither my ASR33 Teletype
nor my DECwriter seem to have that key!!
r norman
While others have jerkness thrust upon them?
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Stephen"
<ssa...@austin.rr.com>:
>Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>
>> Responding on top. With the invention of new mobile gadgets I think it
>> will be wise responding on top of the messages rather bottom.
Poifect! ;-)
>Because it reverses the natural flow of the conversation.
>why?
>Top-posting.
>What is the most annoying habit in usenet or email msgs?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter):
Sorry; my newsreader cut off everything below your post.
Were you responding to something? ;-)
>Below is yet another example of a fallacious argument against top
>posting. The argument presumes that usenet and email messages
>have the same natural flow as verbal conversations. This is not
>a given. Blogs and other forms of on line social communications
>quite wisely reserve this archaic format for special situations
>in which there actually is a short sequence of commentary.
>
>How often do we see long passages of quoted material with minor
>followup annotations interpolated into the text. Such messages,
>all too common on talk.origins, are not effective communication.
>There is situations where top posting is appropriate, and
>situations where it is not.
>
>What is never appropriate is hectoring based on antediluvian
>prejudices.
>Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
>http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
>It's not much to ask of the universe that it be fair;
>it's not much to ask but it just doesn't happen.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Ganesh J. Acharya"
<ganeshj...@gmail.com>:
>when i previously deleted messages everyone here had trouble relating
>the msg
>
>On Mar 9, 7:48�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 08:18:51 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Ganesh J. Acharya"
>> <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Mar 9, 5:32 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >> Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>> >> > Responding on top. With the invention of new mobile gadgets I think it
>> >> > will be wise responding on top of the
Nice (horrible) example of why a phone is a poor device for
Usenet. Did you intend a response to my reply, as the
incorrect attributions seem to indicate? If not, what *did*
you intend? Just another word muddle? If so, success hasn't
eluded you.
Bob Casanova
>would deleting message serve the purpose? no.
>
>so when i message from mobile i will top post.
And that's why killfiles were invented; to automatically
ignore posts from self-congratulatory, arrogant and
antisocial idiots. Bye.
>Max wrote:
>> On Mar 8, 9:51?pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Responding on top. With the invention of new mobile gadgets I think it
>> > will be wise responding ?on top of the messages rather bottom.
>>
>> Top posting is great for flame wars. For meaningful, thoughtful post,s
>> not so much. But how much thought are you putting into posts you're
>> entering via your phone?
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Boikat
<boi...@bellsouth.net>:
Maybe he learned about newsgroups from Ray; as I recall this
was one of Ray's more entertaining idiocies.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>In article
><62e50b43-c7a2-4c9b...@q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 9, 10:15�pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > now things are better this way. google groups by default asked ppl to
>> > top post so this is the very reason... i guess
>>
>> News flash: Google Groups does not run USNET.
>>
>> Boikat
>
>Who was that creationist^W idiot who insisted they do?
Ray Martinez, IIRC. And you can remove the "clear word"
command, since both apply.
Richard Harter
<chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 9, 11:42 pm, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 15:21:02 -0800 (PST), chris thompson
>>
>> <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Mar 8, 9:51 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >> Responding on top. With the invention of new mobile gadgets I think it
>> >> will be wise responding on top of the messages rather bottom.
>>
>> >There are groups where it is considered polite to top-post. This is
>> >not one of them.
>>
>> Nothing is considered polite in talk.origins because nothing is
>> polite. In fact, it is impolite to be polite.
>
>Thank you.
How wude.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
Richard Harter
Knot sough.
Mark Isaak
> On Mar 9, 5:32�pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>> > Responding on top. With the invention of new mobile gadgets I think
>> > it will be wise responding �on top of the messages rather bottom.
>>
>> Why?
>
> The mobile phone that I have only opens only 512 characters when
> editing. The message below 512 characters are cut.
Then cut out the first zillion or so characters of previous posts until
less than 512 are left. That would improve most threads anyway.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Mark Isaak
> Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Responding on top. With the invention of new mobile gadgets I think it
>> will be wise responding on top of the messages rather bottom.
You've got to admit, though: It's better than middle-posting.
> Because it impedes the normal flow of reading conversations.
>
>> Why is top posting a bad idea?
--
Mark Isaak
> would deleting message serve the purpose? no.
>
> so when i message from mobile i will top post.
>
> Max wrote:
>> On Mar 8, 9:51pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Responding on top. With the invention of new mobile gadgets I think
>> > it will be wise responding on top of the messages rather bottom.
>>
>> Top posting is great for flame wars. For meaningful, thoughtful post,s
>> not so much. But how much thought are you putting into posts you're
>> entering via your phone?
Just to advise you: Since most people here bottom-post, I automatically
scroll to the bottom. If I see nothing there, I assume someone hit the
send key too soon, and ignore the whole post. If you top-post, then I
will often miss what you say.
In short, go ahead and top-post. :-)
chris thompson
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:10:58 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>
> >In article
> > Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Mar 9, 10:15�pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > now things are better this way. google groups by default asked ppl to
> >> > top post so this is the very reason... i guess
>
> >> News flash: �Google Groups does not run USNET.
>
> >> Boikat
>
> >Who was that creationist^W idiot who insisted they do?
>
> Ray Martinez, IIRC. And you can remove the "clear word"
> command, since both apply.
I could swear there was someone else who thought Gurgle Groups was the
be-all and end-all of Usenet....dang, who was it?
Chris
chris thompson
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:13:20 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>
>
>
> <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >Richard Harter <c...@tiac.net> wrote:
> >>On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 15:21:02 -0800 (PST), chris thompson
> >><chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On Mar 8, 9:51?pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>> Responding on top. With the invention of new mobile gadgets I think it
> >>>> will be wise responding ?on top of the messages rather bottom.
>
> >>>There are groups where it is considered polite to top-post. This is
> >>>not one of them.
>
> >>Nothing is considered polite in talk.origins because nothing is
> >>polite. �In fact, it is impolite to be polite.
>
> >Please sir, say not so?
>
> Knot sough.
Sew watt!
Chris
Burkhard
> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 23:58:43 +0000, Scott Balneaves wrote:
let
> > Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
alone
> >> Responding on top. With the invention of new mobile gadgets I think it
distributed
> >> will be wise responding �on top of the messages rather bottom.
>
posting
> You've got to admit, though: It's better than middle-posting.
>
which
> > Because it impedes the normal flow of reading conversations.
>
is
> >> Why is top posting a bad idea?
really
>
bad
Walter Bushell
r norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:08:20 -0500, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <biqdp51lo0jj0h7d3...@4ax.com>,
> > r norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
<snip>
> >Especially TO. But, the posts *do* contain a trace back mechanism. In
> >MT-Newswatcher, for example, cloverleaf-H brings up the previous posts
> >and one can double click on them to bring them up.
> >
> >So perhaps more snipage would be indicated as people repost screens of
> >mostly or completely irrelevant (not to mention irreverent) backstory.
>
> A LOT more snippage would be very nice.
>
> But what is this "cloverleaf-H" business? Neither my ASR33 Teletype
> nor my DECwriter seem to have that key!!
If you don't have those keys, or at least know what they are, you are
almost certainly not running MT-Newswatcher, so it doesn't matter.
el cid
> On 10 Mar, 22:45, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 23:58:43 +0000, Scott Balneaves wrote:
>
> let
>
> > > Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> alone
>
> > >> Responding on top. With the invention of new mobile gadgets I think it
>
> distributed
>
> > >> will be wise responding on top of the messages rather bottom.
>
> posting
>
> > You've got to admit, though: It's better than middle-posting.
>
> which
>
> > > Because it impedes the normal flow of reading conversations.
>
> is
>
>
>
> > >> Why is top posting a bad idea?
> �really
>
> bad
_interposito interrumpo ecce malus_
err, _Romanes eunt domus_, I mean _Romani ite domum_
Kleuskes & Moos
I've had beef jerky thrust upon me... Does that count?
Tristan Miller
In article <news:ae544fda-0cf9-460c-
b085-84c...@a16g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
> when i previously deleted messages everyone here had trouble relating
> the msg
This is Usenet; you can't delete a message. And please stop top-posting.
Regards,
Tristan
--
_
_V.-o Tristan Miller >< Space is limited
/ |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- <> In a haiku, so it's hard
(7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ >< To finish what you
Tristan Miller
In article
<news:0b24d293-9402-471c...@z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
> because that is what accessibility advicers will generally quote.
Two things:
1) What are you responding to here? Your sentence makes absolutely no
sense out of context.
2) Assuming you're talking about a 512-character limit, I don't believe
you. Please provide a citation from an accessibility authority to support
that claim.
> again it is what suits best at any moment. tomorrow if more ppl start
> texting this way then people will automatically change their ways.
>
> Tristan Miller wrote:
>> Greetings.
>> In article <news:a2cefaf3-10d4-4095-
>> b897-258...@k2g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>> > On Mar 9, 5:32 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >> Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>> >> > Responding on top.
And please don't top-post.
John Wilkins
<r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
Intermittently, yes...
John Wilkins
<62e50b43-c7a2-4c9b...@q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Mar 9, 10:15�pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > now things are better this way. google groups by default asked ppl to
> > top post so this is the very reason... i guess
>
> News flash: Google Groups does not run USNET.
>
But it does run THEMNET.
John Wilkins
<r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
Just use the Set Up key instead.
John Wilkins
<pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <100320101927358331%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
> John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <5a0b7a21-386a-48f4...@i25g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> > Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > On 10 Mar, 00:44, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> > > > In article <bamdp55ohfdjgut8ont0rmhs030akgi...@4ax.com>, r norman
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:14:15 +1000, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >What are you talking about?
> > > >
> > > > > >In article <4b96cb43.896013...@text.giganews.com>, Richard Harter
> > > > > ><c...@tiac.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >> Below is yet another example of a fallacious argument against top
> > > > > >> posting. �The argument presumes that usenet and email messages
> > > > > >> have the same natural flow as verbal conversations. �This is not
> > > > > >> a given. �Blogs and other forms of on line social communications
> > > > > >> quite wisely reserve this archaic format for special situations
> > > > > >> in which there actually is a short sequence of commentary.
> > > >
> > > > > >> How often do we see long passages of quoted material with minor
> > > > > >> followup annotations interpolated into the text. �Such messages,
> > > > > >> all too common on talk.origins, are not effective communication.
> > > > > >> There is situations where top posting is appropriate, and
> > > > > >> situations where it is not.
> > > >
> > > > > >> What is never appropriate is hectoring based on antediluvian
> > > > > >> prejudices. �
> > > >
> > > > > >> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 20:19:22 +0000 (UTC), "Stephen"
> > > > > >> <ssan...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >> >Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >> >> Responding on top. With the invention of new mobile gadgets I
> > > > > >> >> think
> > > > > >> >> it
> > > > > >> >> will be wise responding �on top of the messages rather bottom.
> > > >
> > > > > >> >Because it reverses the natural flow of the conversation.
> > > > > >> >why?
> > > > > >> >Top-posting.
> > > > > >> >What is the most annoying habit in usenet or email msgs?
> > > >
> > > > > Just the usual nonsense in favor of the abominable practice of
> > > > > top-posting.
> > > >
> > > > > If you are not actively following a particular thread then it is
> > > > > absolutely necessary to read information leading up to any particular
> > > > > reply and top posting makes that will nigh impossible.
> > > >
> > > > > And unless you are some sort of obsessive maniac, actively following
> > > > > every thread here on t.o. is quite out of the question.
> > > >
> > > > > Emai is a totally different application, used in a totally different
> > > > > way and parallels simply do not apply.
> > > >
> > > > > So, please, please, please bottom post!!!
> > > >
> > > > *sigh*
> > > >
> > > > My humour doesn't work well on Usenet. Actually, my humour doesn't work
> > > > well, period.
> > > >
> > > > By top posting I was implying I didn't know what had happened upthread,
> > > > because I hadn't read it... look, just ignore it, okay? Geez. Tough
> > > > audience...
> > >
> > > I found it very funny. But then i also thought this entire thread
> > > was about sex...
> > >
> > Everything's about sex...
>
> If you don't have it, the chances are great your children won't either.
You mean my kids caught sex from me? Oh noes!
el cid
I tend to think of Google more in terms of spiders than ants, giant
radioactive spiders.
r norman
wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:18:51 -0800, Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>
>> On Mar 9, 5:32�pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>>> > Responding on top. With the invention of new mobile gadgets I think
>>> > it will be wise responding �on top of the messages rather bottom.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> The mobile phone that I have only opens only 512 characters when
>> editing. The message below 512 characters are cut.
>
>Then cut out the first zillion or so characters of previous posts until
>less than 512 are left. That would improve most threads anyway.
I hope you will accept a friendly amendment which will significantly
improve your technique:
"Then cut out the first zillion or so characters of previous posts
until less than 1 is left. That would significatnly improve most
threads."
r norman
wrote:
I have noticed that most jerks are constants in that regard. Is that
an oxymoron?
Ferrous Patella
4ef9-bcae-e...@a18g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
> Sew watt!
When I worked at Elderly Instruments in Lansing MI, there was a sewing shop
across the street that constantly ran ads with a big banner that read
�SEWER ALERT�. I misread them every time.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Cory Albrecht
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 15:21:02 -0800 (PST), chris thompson
>
>> On Mar 8, 9:51�pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya"<ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Responding on top. With the invention of new mobile gadgets I think it
>>> will be wise responding �on top of the messages rather bottom.
>>
>> not one of them.
>
> Nothing is considered polite in talk.origins because nothing is
> polite. In fact, it is impolite to be polite.
O yeah? I'll be as **ing polite as I **ing well wanna be. ** you and the
optical fibre you logged in on.
:-)
el cid
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:27:09 +1000, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <ijofp5thva3oc3f2p73qu3m55jlkvn6...@4ax.com>, r norman
> ><r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 08:15:50 -0800 (PST), Boikat
> >> <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> >On Mar 10, 8:45 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> would deleting message serve the purpose? no.
>
> >> >> so when i message from mobile i will top post.
>
> >> >Some people are natural jerks, and some choose to be jerks.
>
> >> While others have jerkness thrust upon them?
>
> >Intermittently, yes...
>
> I have noticed that most jerks are constants in that regard. Is that
> an oxymoron?
This talk or thrusts and jerks seems highly derivative. Perhaps
it should be jounced over the sci.physics or alt.rice.crispies
in a snap crackle and pop.
chris thompson
wrote:
> chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ae349a3c-d29b-
> 4ef9-bcae-e1d59fa12...@a18g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Sew watt!
>
> When I worked at Elderly Instruments in Lansing MI, there was a sewing shop
> across the street that constantly ran ads with a big banner that read
> “SEWER ALERT”. I misread them every time.
>
Wow~! FP, how are you? Long, long time no see!
Are you slumming for a night or are you back for a while?
Chris
James Beck
wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:27:09 +1000, John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <ijofp5thva3oc3f2p...@4ax.com>, r norman
>><r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 08:15:50 -0800 (PST), Boikat
>>> <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Mar 10, 8:45 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>>> >wrote:
>>> >> would deleting message serve the purpose? no.
>>> >>
>>> >> so when i message from mobile i will top post.
>>> >>
>>> >Some people are natural jerks, and some choose to be jerks.
>>> >
>>>
>>> While others have jerkness thrust upon them?
>>>
>>Intermittently, yes...
>
>I have noticed that most jerks are constants in that regard. Is that
>an oxymoron?
Who cares? It's a pleasant dream and all the gear cams in nerd heaven
are whining their approval anyway.
Ganesh J. Acharya
> Richard Harter wrote, on 10-03-09 11:42 PM:
>
> > On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 15:21:02 -0800 (PST), chris thompson
>
> >> On Mar 8, 9:51 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya"<ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Responding on top. With the invention of new mobile gadgets I think it
> >>> will be wise responding on top of the messages rather bottom.
>
> >> There are groups where it is considered polite to top-post. This is
> >> not one of them.
>
> > Nothing is considered polite in talk.origins because nothing is
> > polite. In fact, it is impolite to be polite.
>
> O yeah? I'll be as **ing polite as I **ing well wanna be. ** you and the
> optical fibre you logged in on.
>
Ganesh J. Acharya
Well only if the bottom portion of the message opens. The entire text
after 512 characters gets cut. So, how do I work around it. Only if
you all top post I would be able to respond over the top to the latest
reply.
Email communications are done this way, people do not have any problem
so far with those.