Re: A question about coil winding
harry
<EHWollm...@aol.com> wrote:
> "Josepi" <J...@inv.alid.com> wrote in messagenews:XirWm.107088$gg6....@newsfe25.iad...
> > The heat disapation is not a big feature of the varnish but nevertheless, is
> > there.
>
> Where is John Fools and John Lackin? You fools like to complain about my English...heehee....Now look at the guy above^ He said: "heat disapation".
>
> ...I've Never heard of it! I heard "Heat Dissipation!" You dipshit were born here, how can you let an alien beat you huh?
They're only poor Yanks. They spell lots of word wrongly in America.
Josepi
Since you are an alien English wizard, when is a singular noun used with a
plural verb in a sentence?
Better troll, next time. Glass house?
"The real Edmond H. Wollmann" <EHWol...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:LMydnY2mMvCSDLHW...@posted.toastnet...
>
> "Josepi" <J...@inv.alid.com> wrote in message
John Fields
---
Should be 'words', actually.
JF
Bob Eld
"The real Edmond H. Wollmann" <EHWol...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:LMydnY2mMvCSDLHW...@posted.toastnet...
>
> "Josepi" <J...@inv.alid.com> wrote in message
> > The heat disapation is not a big feature of the varnish but
nevertheless, is
> > there.
>
>
> Where is John Fools and John Lackin? You fools like to complain about my
English...heehee....Now look at the guy above^ He said: "heat disapation".
>
>
>
> ...I've Never heard of it! I heard "Heat Dissipation!" You dipshit were
born here, >how can you let an alien beat you huh?
Sew wat ar u, the speling Natzie. Watz it two ya! Dyd u hav trubel
undorstadn wat waz sed?
Her is a notr on for yu, yu can tke ot evry thrd leter or so an stil mak
sens o it. Englsh is vry redndant contanin far mor letrs than necesry for
comunicatin.
Josepi
"Bob Eld" <nsmon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hgji34$k8h$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
m II
> Should be 'words', actually.
Prepositions are not your strong point, are they John?
mike
--
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /
/ /\ \/ /\'Think tanks cleaned cheap' /\ \/ /
/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/
Densa International©
For the OTHER two percent.
Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage,
I block all postings with a Gmail, Google Mail,
Google Groups or HOTMAIL address.
I also filter everything from a .cn server.
For solutions which may work for you, please check:
amdx
"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:b3fqi5ltit4esi8u3...@4ax.com...
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/grammarlogs4/grammarlogs546.htm
"Both wrong and wrongly are adverbs. As a general rule, use wrongly when the
adverb appears before the verb it modifies, but use wrong when the adverb
appears after the verb it modifies. "The German shepherd was wrongly awarded
Best of Show." "He guessed wrong."
Mike :-)
Hmm, should that be double quotation marks at the end of the quote? ;-)
John Fields
>!!dias ylecin
---
.etairporppa erehw tsop enilni ro tsop mottob esaelP
Thanks,
JF
Michael B
But ya know, you don't have to pick through the shit to find
the corn with top posting.
Did you?
John Fields
>John Fields wrote:
>
>> Should be 'words', actually.
>
>
>Prepositions are not your strong point, are they John?
---
Huh?
Here's the quote:
"They're only poor Yanks. They spell lots of word wrongly in America."
The preposition is "in" and it introduces the noun "America".
Then, the prepositional phrase 'in America' acts as an adverb,
describing where the words were wrongly spelled.
My quarrel was with the plural adjective "lots" being used to modify the
singular noun "word", which has nothing to do with the preposition or
the prepositional phrase.
Here:
http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/hypergrammar/preposit.html
JF
John Fields
<EHWol...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>"m II" <C...@in.the.hat> wrote in message news:4b2d...@news.x-privat.org...
>John Fields wrote:
>
>> Should be 'words', actually.
>
>
>>Prepositions are not your strong point, are they John?
>> mike
>
>
>
>Nop! He's good at copy and past some funky formulas off his Electronic workbench!...heeheee....
---
"Nop", I suspect, describes your life.
JF
John Fields
---
Yup, and at the beginning too. :-)
JF
John Fields
<baug...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>You imply that top posting is a backwards communication.
---
I don't have to imply; it is.
---
>But ya know, you don't have to pick through the shit to find
>the corn with top posting.
---
Sure you do; when you top post and someone starts reading the thread
chronologically, the shit is right at the top followed by the corn.
Apparently, being an eminently stupid and inconsiderate Google Grouper,
you don't even realize that this is USENET and that you've accessed it
through Google's web-based interface.
In addition, you've obviously not even taken the time to read Google's
posting guidelines, which are sound.
From:
http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=12348&topic=250
"Summarize what you're following up.
When you click "Reply" under "show options" to follow up an existing
article, Google Groups includes the full article in quotes, with the
cursor at the top of the article. Tempting though it is to just start
typing your message, please STOP and do two things first.
Look at the quoted text and remove parts that are irrelevant.
Then, go to the BOTTOM of the article and start typing there.
Doing this makes it much easier for your readers to get through your
post. They'll have a reminder of the relevant text before your
comment, but won't have to re-read the entire article.
And if your reply appears on a site before the original article does,
they'll get the gist of what you're talking about."
JF
JF
krw
I prefer long quotes to be separated and offset.
>---
>Yup, and at the beginning too. :-)
The opening quotation was there but had no match to close the
quotation.
John Fields
---
Yeah, you're right.
JF
John Larkin
<EHWol...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>"Josepi" <J...@inv.alid.com> wrote in message news:XirWm.107088$gg6....@newsfe25.iad...
>> The heat disapation is not a big feature of the varnish but nevertheless, is
>> there.
>
>
>Where is John Fools and John Lackin? You fools like to complain about my English...heehee....Now look at the guy above^ He said: "heat disapation".
>
>
>
>...I've Never heard of it! I heard "Heat Dissipation!" You dipshit were born here, how can you let an alien beat you huh?
There's some Usenet law to the effect that posts which complain about
spelling or grammar errors always contain errors of their own.
Still true.
Do you know anything about electronics? Tell us.
John
Michael B
Do I still have time to report the shoe sales posts as
spam before they get to me?
Oh, I see that the guidelines use the word "please". That
means "It would be very nice if you would do this". Okay,
I've been reminded.
Now, do you perhaps need a lesson on how to killfile me?
Wouldn't be the first, won't be the last.
On Dec 20, 12:46 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com>
wrote:
> cursor at the top of the article. Tempting though it is to just start
> typing your message, please STOP and do two things first.
> Look at the quoted text and remove parts that are irrelevant.
> Then, go to the BOTTOM of the article and start typing there.
> Doing this makes it much easier for your readers to get through your
> post. They'll have a reminder of the relevant text before your
> comment, but won't have to re-read the entire article.
> And if your reply appears on a site before the original article does,
> they'll get the gist of what you're talking about."
On Dec 20, 12:46 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com>
wrote:
John Fields
<baug...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>How long will it be before the Grammar Police get here?
---
They're here already.
---
>Do I still have time to report the shoe sales posts as
>spam before they get to me?
---
Ah, I see you _do_ consider some types of posts as being objectionable,
so you _should_ be capable of recognizing that many consider top posting
in USENET to be not only objectionable, but extremely bad form.
Why?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=USENET+top-posting&rlz=1W1GFRC_en&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
---
>Oh, I see that the guidelines use the word "please". That
>means "It would be very nice if you would do this". Okay,
>I've been reminded.
---
Since a few of the reasons for bottom posting and trimming were given,
and "please" was used to ask you, politely, to follow the conventions
that most of us have found helpful in eliminating confusion and saving
time, your recalcitrance at posting, using those conventions, is
telling.
Specifically, since you obviously have no intention of being
accommodating and making life a little easier for all of us, you brand
yourself as being a narcissistic little creep who wants Rome to do as he
does.
---
>Now, do you perhaps need a lesson on how to killfile me?
>Wouldn't be the first, won't be the last.
---
I'm sure.
With an attitude like yours there are likely many more who have filtered
you out of their lives than not; probably the way you prefer it...
JF
Josepi
a mess of the thread and confuses the hell out of anybody actually caring
about who posted what. Your bwoser was made to top post with the attachments
at the bottom, keep the headers with the respective text and be easy to use.
Look at the mess you have made of this thread with bottom posting.
The bottom post argument is the favourite troll of the bored and stupid.
This thread is prime example of this.
BTW: Trimming is good but please don't sign your initials over and over.
You're not that important.
"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:pb5vi5dc8u6da53jc...@4ax.com...
> JF
> JF
Josepi
I can read either but most bottom posted polls longer than one page are not
read by me or most others.
"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:e50ti5po0e659s8vk...@4ax.com...
Josepi
"Edmond H. Wollmann" <EHWol...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ybudndZDC5qJD63W...@posted.toastnet...
Ok, then your brain works slow, not slowly. Is that ok grammar according to
your suggestion ?
Walk slow, Don't walk slowly ok?
John Fields
>Yup, top posting is the favouite troll of the unoriginal ones.
---
So, by top posting, you're admitting that's your favorite method of
trolling _and_ that you're unoriginal?
---
>I can read either but most bottom posted polls longer than one page are not
>read by me or most others.
---
"Polls???
"Most others"???
JF
John Fields
>Geeesh. Please don't fuck wit the atural order of your newsreader. It makes
>a mess of the thread and confuses the hell out of anybody actually caring
>about who posted what. Your bwoser was made to top post with the attachments
>at the bottom, keep the headers with the respective text and be easy to use.
---
My "bwoser"???
Geez, where do these creeps come from?
---
>Look at the mess you have made of this thread with bottom posting.
---
Certainly not I, since with the earliest post at the top and the most
recent at the bottom, the chronological order of responses is
maintained and anyone joining the thread at any time merely has to read
from the top down (as we do when we're reading a book, a magazine
article, a newspaper, etc.) to follow the thread.
Your idiotic predilection for top posting assumes that what you have to
say is important enough that everyone should read it first and then go
thrashing about, scampering through the thread in order to determine
what you were talking about.
So far I haven't seen any evidence justifying your position.
---
>The bottom post argument is the favourite troll of the bored and stupid.
>This thread is prime example of this.
---
On the contrary, clearly over 99% of us bottom post (and inline post
when it's appropriate) because it makes sense, while I think the
remaining 1% top post in order to get attention or just because you're
troublemakers with a "You can't tell me what to do" attitude.
---
>BTW: Trimming is good but please don't sign your initials over and over.
>You're not that important.
---
If that were true, then you should follow your own advice and stop
posting altogether.
JF
Michael B
will be something a reader actually seeks by scrolling past
all your other trolldom utterances.
I actually scrolled down to see if you had posted something
relevant to the topic. But, no. I was disappointed, but not
particularly surprised.
Go back to the bottom where you are comfortable, more easily
ignored.
On Dec 22, 7:55 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com>
wrote:
> Your idiotic predilection for top posting assumes that what you have to
Josepi
scrolling to the bottom and then reading backwards to find the top of their
statements.
Just look at a thread where epople haven't trimmed and the big inserted
lexical levels are hard to pick out and the outside lexical levels are
useless as nobody can count that many right carets to figure out who said
it. The result? People read the previous posts to know who said what,
confusion results in fights from people disagreeing with the wrong people
and just general mass confusion of information, especially with the browsers
meant to download binary files, mainly.
Look at this beautiful format. This is the way every browser I have seen so
far is designed to work. It is always a favourite troll post of the lazy
trolls when losing an argument. "Your format is wrong" makes a good
distraction from the real issue.
Now read very closely in the attached reference posts I may have interlaced
a comment, somewhere...LOL
"Michael B" <baug...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:61e9f5bc-7024-4deb...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
daestrom
As in the common mnemonic for 'No Operation' when dealing with assembly
language?
daestrom
daestrom
> Geeesh. Please don't fuck wit the atural order of your newsreader. It makes
> a mess of the thread and confuses the hell out of anybody actually caring
> about who posted what. Your bwoser was made to top post with the attachments
> at the bottom, keep the headers with the respective text and be easy to use.
>
> Look at the mess you have made of this thread with bottom posting.
>
> The bottom post argument is the favourite troll of the bored and stupid.
> This thread is prime example of this.
>
> BTW: Trimming is good but please don't sign your initials over and over.
> You're not that important.
>
Actually, by reading this thread with a 'news-reader' such as what I'm
using, John's posts and headers make nice, chronological sense. Each
one seems to be in direct reply to the message it is linked to.
Perhaps if you weren't using a bwoser [sic] it would look better for
you. By using a web-based news reader, you're at the mercy of how that
web server reads the headers and such. Most likely it is your web-based
news service that has mad a mess of things.
daestrom
daestrom
> Yup, top posting is the favouite troll of the unoriginal ones.
>
> I can read either but most bottom posted polls longer than one page are not
> read by me or most others.
>
How arrogant of you to presume to speak for 'most others'.
You certainly don't speak for me.
daestrom
John Fields
<baug...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Dec 22, 7:55�pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Your idiotic predilection for top posting assumes that what you have to
>> say is important enough that everyone should read it first and then go
>> thrashing about, scampering through the thread in order to determine
>> what you were talking about.
>Your position, at the bottom, assumes that your responses
>will be something a reader actually seeks by scrolling past
>all your other trolldom utterances.
> I actually scrolled down to see if you had posted something
>relevant to the topic. But, no. I was disappointed, but not
>particularly surprised.
---
While the original topic was coil winding, this part of the thread has
gone off-topic and diverged to the point where what's being discussed is
the efficacy of bottom and in-line posting VS top posting.
Consequently, since my comments address top, in-line, and bottom posting
they are relevant.
---
>Go back to the bottom where you are comfortable, more easily
>ignored.
---
Isn't comfort and lack of confusion in communications what we should all
strive for?
I've relocated your post so that it follows my earlier one in order that
you might see how much more natural the flow is, chronologically, using
bottom posting.
Just think (if you can) how much easier someone coming across this post
for the first time would find it to understand, reading it from the top
down instead of having to jump about trying to stitch together seemingly
unrelated pieces of quiltwork.
JF
John Fields
>I must say I do like the way the browsers were designed to top post. I hate
>scrolling to the bottom and then reading backwards to find the top of their
>statements.
---
Browsers aren't designed to top post, but simpletons who can't be
bothered (or don't know how) to locate the cursor properly before they
start typing use that as an excuse to justify top posting, a format that
was adopted as the default for email, where it works since the
(generally) two people involved in the exchange know what went before.
In USENET that's not true, and a reader coming across a thread for the
first time wouldn't know what went before and would then, logically, go
to the top of the post and start reading from there in order to traverse
the correct chronological sequence of posts _if_ the earlier posts were
located at the top of the stack.
Just like picking up a book you had never read before, would you expect
chapter 10 to be at the beginning and chapter 1 at the end?
---
>Just look at a thread where epople haven't trimmed and the big inserted
>lexical levels are hard to pick out and the outside lexical levels are
>useless as nobody can count that many right carets to figure out who said
>it. The result? People read the previous posts to know who said what,
>confusion results in fights from people disagreeing with the wrong people
>and just general mass confusion of information, especially with the browsers
>meant to download binary files, mainly.
---
Troll, huh?
---
>Look at this beautiful format. This is the way every browser I have seen so
>far is designed to work. It is always a favourite troll post of the lazy
>trolls when losing an argument. "Your format is wrong" makes a good
>distraction from the real issue.
---
My position and that of probably >>99% of USENET is that bottom and
in-line posting is much more efficacious and considerate to readers than
top posting, so your disagreeing with that position is tantamount to
your declaring "Your format is wrong", which hoists you on your own
petard and brands _you_ as the lazy troll losing the argument.
---
>Now read very closely in the attached reference posts I may have interlaced
>a comment, somewhere...LOL
---
You make my point and laugh at any inconvenience I may experience in
trying to search for your maliciously placed nonsense.
Just what I would expect of an immature, self-centered, top-poster.
---
>"Michael B" <baug...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:61e9f5bc-7024-4deb...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>Your position, at the bottom, assumes that your responses
>will be something a reader actually seeks by scrolling past
>all your other trolldom utterances.
> I actually scrolled down to see if you had posted something
>relevant to the topic. But, no. I was disappointed, but not
>particularly surprised.
>Go back to the bottom where you are comfortable, more easily
>ignored.
>
> On Dec 22, 7:55 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com>wrote:
>Your idiotic predilection for top posting assumes that what you have to
>say is important enough that everyone should read it first and then go
>thrashing about, scampering through the thread in order to determine
>what you were talking about.
---
Ugh...
If you consider that formatting to be beautiful, then I suggest you
consider this to be beautiful, as well:
http://www.100abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Baby_Pictures_Abortion_Photos/Enlargement.cfm?ID=38
JF
John Fields
Josepi
assemblers got cheaper. Always use one before a CLI.
808x I wouldn't want to see the code for that POS. Not assembler friendly.
LOL
"daestrom" <daes...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hgtc1...@news5.newsguy.com...
As in the common mnemonic for 'No Operation' when dealing with assembly
language?
daestrom
John Fields wrote:
"Nop", I suspect, describes your life.
JF JF JF
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 02:04:31 -0800, "Edmond H. Wollmann"
Josepi
"Fred Abse" <excret...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.12.23....@invalid.invalid...
<a lot of crap nobody else wanted to see could be snipped also but the flow
would have been lost, similar to bottom posting>
Aside from your use of the word "browser". (Microsoft Outlook Express
isn't a browser, it's a mail client / rudimentary news client). there are
no quotation marks (>) against the quoted part of your posting.
That, combined with top posting, makes it almost unintelligible.
Learn to bottom post and quote properly or stay the hell out of
sci.electronics.* groups.
Josepi
If you have no logical arguments left try insulting everybody.
"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:cbm4j5lbu33a2rr3k...@4ax.com...
Browsers aren't designed to top post, but simpletons who can't be
bothered (or don't know how) to locate the cursor properly before they
start typing use that as an excuse to justify top posting, a format that
was adopted as the default for email, where it works since the
(generally) two people involved in the exchange know what went before.
In USENET that's not true, and a reader coming across a thread for the
first time wouldn't know what went before and would then, logically, go
to the top of the post and start reading from there in order to traverse
the correct chronological sequence of posts _if_ the earlier posts were
located at the top of the stack.
Just like picking up a book you had never read before, would you expect
chapter 10 to be at the beginning and chapter 1 at the end?
Troll, huh?
My position and that of probably >>99% of USENET is that bottom and
in-line posting is much more efficacious and considerate to readers than
top posting, so your disagreeing with that position is tantamount to
your declaring "Your format is wrong", which hoists you on your own
petard and brands _you_ as the lazy troll losing the argument.
You make my point and laugh at any inconvenience I may experience in
trying to search for your maliciously placed nonsense.
Just what I would expect of an immature, self-centered, top-poster.
---
Ugh...
Josepi
Your bottom posting troll was a good distraction for entertainment purposes
only.
"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:i2i4j5586m4djuorl...@4ax.com...
JF JF JF
Josepi
the three browsers I have experienced.
"daestrom" <daes...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hgtci...@news5.newsguy.com...
Josepi
Learning to troll, are we?
"daestrom" <daes...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hgtcn...@news5.newsguy.com...
krw
>Now you consider yourself "most".
Show us the numbers or admit your lie.
>Learning to troll, are we?
Do you *always* refer to yourself in the plural?
Michael A. Terrell
krw wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:21:25 -0500, "Josepi" <J...@inv.alid.com> wrote:
>
> >Now you consider yourself "most".
>
> Show us the numbers or admit your lie.
>
> >Learning to troll, are we?
>
> Do you *always* refer to yourself in the plural?
Morons usually do. :(
--
Offworld checks no longer accepted!
John Fields
>Good thing it was easy to follow for you.
---
Following an asshole's trail isn't difficult, all one has to do is
follow the scent of shit.
---
>If you have no logical arguments left try insulting everybody.
---
No need to, and even if I had no logical arguments left, why would I
take a page from your book and try to use it to my advantage by
insulting everyone?
Do you think that because you're at your wit's end and have nowhere to
hide that I have no logic left with which to flail you?
If you do, you're severely mistaken and I'll be glad to drag your dick
in the dirt for as long as it takes to get you to understand what a
pathetic little piece of shit you really are.
Here: take some more rope...
JF
Michael B
logical and effective, apologizes for the distraction, admits
that he is a troll, and wishes he could get out of his mother's
basement and get a job.
On Dec 23, 12:56 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com>
wrote:
> >"Michael B" <baugh...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >news:61e9f5bc-7024-4deb...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> >Your position, at the bottom, assumes that your responses
> >will be something a reader actually seeks by scrolling past
> >all your other trolldom utterances.
> > I actually scrolled down to see if you had posted something
> >relevant to the topic. But, no. I was disappointed, but not
> >particularly surprised.
> >Go back to the bottom where you are comfortable, more easily
> >ignored.
>
> > On Dec 22, 7:55 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com>wrote:
> >Your idiotic predilection for top posting assumes that what you have to
> >say is important enough that everyone should read it first and then go
> >thrashing about, scampering through the thread in order to determine
> >what you were talking about.
>
> ---
> Ugh...
>
> If you consider that formatting to be beautiful, then I suggest you
> consider this to be beautiful, as well:
>
> http://www.100abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Baby_Pictures_Abortion_Pho...
>
> JF
Josepi
respective text bodies.
Wot a mess. Just look at it <attached below> It appears John says he likes
top posting and that would be a co-operative thing. From previous posts it
appears he gets insulting with everybody in his frustration to make a valid
point. This is common for bottom posters.
"Michael B" <baug...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:2c828404-7c96-4377...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
John Fields
>But nobody can see who said what as the headers are all separated from their
>respective text bodies.
---
Get a proper newsreader and a non-combative attitude and it'll all
become clear to you.
---
>Wot a mess. Just look at it <attached below> It appears John says he likes
>top posting and that would be a co-operative thing. From previous posts it
>appears he gets insulting with everybody in his frustration to make a valid
>point. This is common for bottom posters.
---
You parrot Michael B's nonsensical post, which is, at best wishful
thinking, and therefore show yourself up as being unable to defend your
own untenable position. The insults are there just for deserved
emphasis and are aimed squarely at top posters like you, since you seem
to understand little else.
JF
John Fields
<baug...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>In this post, John acknowledges that top posting is more
>logical and effective, apologizes for the distraction, admits
>that he is a troll, and wishes he could get out of his mother's
>basement and get a job.
---
You're a waste of time and air.
JF
Josepi
Bet you can read this.
"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:kg07j5h0417k3h8p1...@4ax.com...
Josepi
"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:h817j5p7luherh8i0...@4ax.com...
You're a waste of time and air.
JF
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:47:32 -0800 (PST), Michael B
<baug...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>In this post, John acknowledges that top posting is more
>logical and effective, apologizes for the distraction, admits
>that he is a troll, and wishes he could get out of his mother's
>basement and get a job.
JF
JF
John Fields
><PLONK>
> Bet you can read this.
---
Ha! Good riddance.
Poor baby got out-trolled and now she's going to stick her head in the
sand so she won't have to read about how fucked in the head she is.
JF
John Fields
>Get with the programme.
---
First you plonk me and then you write to me?
Seems like you like to dish it out but you can't take it, huh, you
miserable little coward.
JF
John Fields
<baug...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>In this post, John acknowledges that top posting is more
>logical and effective, apologizes for the distraction, admits
>that he is a troll, and wishes he could get out of his mother's
>basement and get a job.
---
Geez...
As usual, when you try to give one of the mentally deficient
Google-groupers a hand by clueing them in to USENET etiquette they fight
tooth and nail to remain clueless and self-absorbed.
JF
Jasen Betts
it appears that you are talking to yourself.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Baron
They ain't worth wasting time over.
Merry Christmas John.
--
Best Regards:
Baron.
amdx
"Edmond H. Wollmann" <EHWol...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ybudndZDC5qJD63W...@posted.toastnet...
>
> "amdx" <am...@knology.net> wrote in message
> news:6fa7d$4b2e19fd$18ec6dd7$14...@KNOLOGY.NET...>> news:b3fqi5ltit4esi8u3...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 10:00:00 -0800 (PST), harry
>>> <susan.a...@virgin.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Dec 19, 8:38 am, "The real Edmond H. Wollmann"
>>>><EHWollm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Josepi" <J...@inv.alid.com> wrote in
>>>>> messagenews:XirWm.107088$gg6....@newsfe25.iad...
>>>>> > The heat disapation is not a big feature of the varnish but
>>>>> > nevertheless, is
>>>>> > there.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where is John Fools and John Lackin? You fools like to complain about
>>>>> my English...heehee....Now look at the guy above^ He said: "heat
>>>>> disapation".
>>>>>
>>>>> ...I've Never heard of it! I heard "Heat Dissipation!" You dipshit
>>>>> were born here, how can you let an alien beat you huh?
>>>>
>>>>They're only poor Yanks. They spell lots of word wrongly in America.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Should be 'words', actually.
>>>
>> According to the Grammar Logs, it should be wrong not wrongly.
>
>
> Ok, then your brain works slow, not slowly. Is that ok grammar according
> to your suggestion ?
>
> Walk slow, Don't walk slowly ok?
>
I don't think you get it!
This is better and more complete.
Your brain works slow.
Your brain was slowly damaged by a lack of stimulation as a toddler.
It was wrong for your mother to do that.
She was not wrongly committed to the insane asylum.
Hope that helps,
Mike
Anti Vigilante
Drive slowly.
--
Fuck the Enlightenment! Viva la Renaissance!
amdx
"Josepi" <J...@inv.alid.com> wrote in message
news:KOvYm.3408$DR6....@newsfe19.iad...
> I'll stick with the crowd and the logical method following the flavour of
> the three browsers I have experienced.
>
you will find the convention is bottom posting.
Regulars don't use browsers for a newsgroup, they use a newsreader.
If you were right, you would not be getting flack from the regulars?
Note, I agree with your logic, top posting would be easier for the way
I read the groups. But that is not the convetion. You could drive on the
right* so you so you have a better sense of where the centerline is, but
that's not the convention. If you drive on the right it screws up traffic.
Join the crowd.
Mike
* assumes your in the UK.
sparky
no usenet and no regulars.. Just ordinary people like you and me.
Then a few decided to become the "net cops" and make rules for
others.
wmbjk...@citlink.net
Save your keystrokes. Josepi is just another of gymmy bob's nyms. A
couple of the others he's used in the energy groups are john p bengi
and solar flare. No matter the newsgroup, he *always* ends up arguing
against proper posting form. Here are a few examples, see for
yourself.
http://tinyurl.com/yhuapw7
http://tinyurl.com/yj2cbtg
http://tinyurl.com/yh386pu
I can't remember which nym it was, but when he started using it here
he bottom posted as part of his disguise. <snorf> But his quackery
gave him away, and as soon as he was outed he went right back to top
posting again, and insisting that it's the standard, despite what by
now must be hundreds of posts explaining the situation to him.
Clearly, he'll never learn.
Wayne
John Fields
wrote:
>It mostly depends on what you want to do. A few years ago there was
>no usenet and no regulars.. Just ordinary people like you and me.
>Then a few decided to become the "net cops" and make rules for
>others.
---
Not _rules_, just manners and, as new as it is, tradition.
Have you ever wondered why a place setting at a polite table is set out
the way it is?
It's because of the way the tools are used during a meal, with the order
going from the outside in as the meal progresses.
Notice, particularly, how the sharp edge of the knife's blade is placed
so as to face its user's plate instead of toward the guest sitting next
to it.
A very gracious way of presenting a symbolically non-threatening
attitude to a neighbor, methinks, instead of the perpetual frown you
arrogantly hostile top-posters seem to confront everyone with.
JF
Josepi
Not a bad troll except I see the asshole reputation you have here and
"click". Too obvious.
Go back to sleep, genius.
<wmbjk...@citlink.net> wrote some lunacy
news:sdi4k5p18hjuh0djj...@4ax.com...
YD
this immortal opus:
>It mostly depends on what you want to do. A few years ago there was
>no usenet and no regulars.. Just ordinary people like you and me.
>Then a few decided to become the "net cops" and make rules for
>others.
>
Usenet was going strong long before there were browsers. In fact, the
main means of communication at the time. Not counting IRC. It's
declining the last couple of years due to Google screwing it up by
making it available in browsers and the old-timers tiring of the mess.
Looking at the frontpage GooGoo make it look like usenet was their
invention and a sub-set of GooGoo groups. Nothing could be farther
from the truth.
- YD.
--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.
Josepi
were developed and threading became a reality and attaching messages to your
reply became unecessary, except for clarity of response.
Top posting has always been encouraged by all browsers in order to keep
headers with the their respective text and the latest posted information at
the position the post was opened, by your modern browser. Some people just
can't get out of the eighties with their Usenet technology, despite all
their professed prowess with other technologies.
"YD" <ydte...@techie.com> wrote in message
news:a495k5trnr1p4enh6...@4ax.com...
Don Klipstein
>Usenet has come a long way since we used to ftp the messages down.
I never used ftp for Usenet since I got involved in 1995. This is the
first time I even heard of ftp being used for Usenet, and I have heard
differently how it usually worked.
> Browsers were developed and threading became a reality
Threading was a reality in 1995 and before, with newsreader and
email/news software.
> and attaching messages to your
>reply became unecessary, except for clarity of response.
>
>Top posting has always been encouraged by all browsers in order to keep
>headers with the their respective text and the latest posted information
>at the position the post was opened, by your modern browser.
Newsreader software worked that way in 1995 and before also (and still
does)!
Meanwhile, Usenet regulars are accustomed to looking for responses
following what they are in response to. Browsers do not discourage that
any more than newsreader software does.
> Some people just can't get out of the eighties with their Usenet
>technology, despite all their professed prowess with other technologies.
The customs of Usenet were established by people who are now old farts,
and the vast majority of those on Usenet support the old-fart customs,
because of how they are accustomed to time-efficiently reading Usenet
posts.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
>"YD" <ydte...@techie.com> wrote in message
>news:a495k5trnr1p4enh6...@4ax.com...
(and Josepi fails ro add quotation symbols as usual)
>Usenet was going strong long before there were browsers. In fact, the
>main means of communication at the time. Not counting IRC. It's
>declining the last couple of years due to Google screwing it up by
>making it available in browsers and the old-timers tiring of the mess.
>
>Looking at the frontpage GooGoo make it look like usenet was their
>invention and a sub-set of GooGoo groups. Nothing could be farther
>from the truth.
>
>- YD.
<SNIP afterwards>
Baron
> It mostly depends on what you want to do. A few years ago there was
> no usenet and no regulars.. Just ordinary people like you and me.
> Then a few decided to become the "net cops" and make rules for
> others.
I think you need to go and read a bit of history ! Usenet precedes the
WWW by a long way. I was using it in the early 80's...
Almost 30 years ago. Seems like yesterday. :-)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet>
--
Best Regards:
Baron.
YD
this immortal opus:
>Usenet has come a long way since we used to ftp the messages down. Browsers
>were developed and threading became a reality and attaching messages to your
>reply became unecessary, except for clarity of response.
AFAIK ftp was never used for messaging, except possibly some BBS.
Threading newsreaders (with the original text attached) were a reality
long before any Windows boxes came on-line. Hell, there weren't any
Windows boxes at all at the time. Go read some history, will you? Do
you really think www is the end-all and be-all of the internet? If you
do, excellent! It means one less clueless weenie not getting into the
real stuff and mess it up.
- YD
Josepi
Windows? WTF was that then?
"YD" <ydte...@techie.com> wrote in message
news:q8s7k5lvfgt3a7e0p...@4ax.com...
Michael B
the intricate aspects of buggy-whip manufacture.
Some people adapt to changing times, others cling to
the habits they learned to barely survive as others
pass them by.
You cling, and seek to be buddies with other trailer-
park refugees whose only value is to provide amusement,
and protein if things get tough.
On Dec 24 2009, 11:21 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com>
wrote:
Josepi
respond to the age old classic troll of posting style.
You have probably noticed that this was introduced as a sidetrack to some
not understanding what they have posted and lacking defence for logic to
back it up.
How is your coil winding going?
"Michael B" <baug...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:cc1f3843-cf2f-4c99...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
JF
JF
JF
Michael B
has closed, it looks like I'll need to get it online.
Any favorite sources of wire?
Baron
> I appreciate your asking. The local store with magnet wire
> has closed, it looks like I'll need to get it online.
>
> Any favorite sources of wire?
Nearest electronics junk pile.
--
Best Regards:
Baron.
Josepi
to get the odd experimenter come into the coil winding factories and ask to
buy a spool and then return the empty for the deposit.
Find a local transformer / coil mfg. and get friendly.
"Michael B" <baug...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:d4ebd644-f806-45cf...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
daestrom
> It mostly depends on what you want to do. A few years ago there was
> no usenet and no regulars..
Actually, 'usenet' is a lot older than the WWW. Before http and www,
there was uucp (unix-to-unix copy). You could send e-mail and usenet
messages without an 'internet'.
daestrom
daestrom
> Usenet has come a long way since we used to ftp the messages down.
ftp??? Boy, that came along much later. Usenet is an offshoot of old
'bulletin board' systems. Starting out on UN*X machines at
universities, it used UUCP to transfer batches of messages from machine
to machine. That was pre IP-protocol days.
Browsers
> were developed and threading became a reality and attaching messages to your
> reply became unecessary, except for clarity of response.
Change that to 'news readers' and you'd be right. 'Browsers' were
developed for the WWW sometime later.
The simple proof of that is if you're reading in google groups or such,
you're actually reading a page of html text. The server at google has
taken the news-server messages and stripped and reformatted them into
html for serving out to a web browser.
When you reply to a message using google groups, google's server takes
the response from your 'post' message to the web server and puts its own
news header on it and sends it to various news servers around the world.
>
> Top posting has always been encouraged by all browsers in order to keep
> headers with the their respective text and the latest posted information at
> the position the post was opened, by your modern browser.
Now you're just making stuff up. The 'headers' are not normally put in
the text window but in a separate section not normally viewed by humans.
For example in my news reader, I don't see any 'headers' in the text
window. To view the headers I simply use a menu option.
Each news server that sends a message adds its own address onto the
header but that has nothing to do with 'top posting'.
daestrom
daestrom
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 12:52:55 -0600, amdx wrote:
>
>> Your NOT sticking with the crowd. Take some time and read some groups,
>> you will find the convention is bottom posting.
>> Regulars don't use browsers for a newsgroup, they use a newsreader.
>
>
It's not even a very good news-reader ;-)
AFAIK, you can't use OE as a 'browser' to surf the WWW :-/
daestrom
Josepi
a Hydro Operator?
"daestrom" <daes...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hi5ko...@news1.newsguy.com...
<the usual snipped>
daestrom
Josepi
"daestrom" <daes...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hi5kr...@news1.newsguy.com...
Michael B
Arthritis, chronic pain, cancer, etc.
See if your >99% observation applies.
When economy of movement, as well
as a small group that knows what has
come before, top posting is most practical.
Hmm, now that I think of it, there is an
enormous number of specific-interest
groups, more being formed all the time.
That would suggest top posting being
more appropriate, along with ignoring
self-appointed net-cops that want to try
to force a practice they know to be
archaic and clumsy.
On Dec 23 2009, 12:56 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com>
wrote:
> My position and that of probably >>99% of USENET is that bottom and
> in-line posting is much more efficacious and considerate to readers than
> top posting, so your disagreeing with that position is tantamount to
> your declaring "Your format is wrong", which hoists you on your own
> petard and brands _you_ as the lazy troll losing the argument.
Josepi
see if I missed anything...
and look! You header, and JF's is with your text and the one before it are
all in order.
I have seen many articles on top posting and it seems it will be the way of
the future once people get more modern Usenet browsers that can actually not
mix up the posting. Funny how these obstinates can use top posting everyday
for business email and then totally switch when posting in a forum like
Usenet.
I have used a few different newsgroup browsers and they all position the
curser at the top. There are always special keystrokes to get to the bottom
but then you have to backtrack to find the top of the entry. Even the
signatures lines are handled by deleting them. So many groups use this
method now with the exception of a few old farts from the outdated IRC...LOL
This should have them cringing in their boots. I used the words "browser",
"forum" and a few others that the "everbody has to be like me" trolls like
to cling onto...LOL
Have a good one.
"Michael B" <baug...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:76754153-f710-4fd0...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
nos...@nevis.com
> Unbelievable. I didn't have to mouse scroll down and then back up again to
> see if I missed anything...
>
> and look! You header, and JF's is with your text and the one before it are
> all in order.
>
> I have seen many articles on top posting and it seems it will be the way of
> the future once people get more modern Usenet browsers that can actually not
> mix up the posting. Funny how these obstinates can use top posting everyday
> for business email and then totally switch when posting in a forum like
> Usenet.
>
> I have used a few different newsgroup browsers and they all position the
> curser at the top. There are always special keystrokes to get to the bottom
> but then you have to backtrack to find the top of the entry. Even the
> signatures lines are handled by deleting them. So many groups use this
> method now with the exception of a few old farts from the outdated IRC...LOL
>
> This should have them cringing in their boots. I used the words "browser",
> "forum" and a few others that the "everbody has to be like me" trolls like
> to cling onto...LOL
>
> Have a good one.
>
>
>
Usenet reads like a book, top posters are a pain in the ass. Doesn't
matter anyway, usenet is dead
John Fields
<baug...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>On Dec 24 2009, 11:21�am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com>
>wrote:
>
>> As usual, when you try to give one of the mentally deficient
>> Google-groupers a hand by clueing them in to USENET etiquette they fight
>> tooth and nail to remain clueless and self-absorbed.
>>
>> JF
>No, and we also don't need to become acquainted with
>the intricate aspects of buggy-whip manufacture.
---
You already have, since you've latched on to an "old" posting style
which is convenient for email tete-a-tete where the participants are
privy know what went before.
It's not convenient for USENET however and, as much as you rail against
it, bottom and inline posting is considered de rigueur by most of the
grown-ups on USENET who are interested in making their communications as
clear, cogent, and unhostile as possible.
You and your ilk, on the other hand, seem to be intent on getting
attention by being as annoying as you possibly can and having disdain
heaped on you as a "reward" since you have, obviously, nothing of any
value to share with the group yet want desperately to be considered
important.
---
>Some people adapt to changing times, others cling to
>the habits they learned to barely survive as others
>pass them by.
---
Some people, like you, try to make things change for the sole purpose of
trying to prove to yourselves that you're _not_ impotent when, if you
had any sense, would realize really how far off the mark you are.
---
>You cling, and seek to be buddies with other trailer-
>park refugees whose only value is to provide amusement,
>and protein if things get tough.
---
As usual, more of the tawdry, knuckle-dragging blather you seem to think
is clever.
Oh, well, at least you're harmless.
BTW, I fixed your top-posting faux pas so that everyone can more easily
read your trash.
That's what you want, isn't it?
JF
John Fields
>As seasoned and thinking Usenet operators we should know better than to
>respond to the age old classic troll of posting style.
---
"Seasoned and thinking Usenet operators"???
Shirley you must be joking.
No matter how you try to cut it, your "defense" of an atrocious and
contrived USENET posting style coupled with your obvious lack of
knowledge of the origins of USENET brands you as an ignorant
"johnny-come-lately" narcissistic troublemaker with no real interest in
anything other than self-aggrandization at the cost of others.
JF
Josepi
Bottom posting arguments and other general stupidity is killing it.
<nos...@nevis.com> wrote in message news:4b46...@news.x-privat.org...
nos...@nevis.com
> Exactly, so why would you start at the bottom with your post?
>
> Bottom posting arguments and other general stupidity is killing it.
>
>
>
> <nos...@nevis.com> wrote in message news:4b46...@news.x-privat.org...
> Usenet reads like a book, top posters are a pain in the ass. Doesn't
> matter anyway, usenet is dead
>
>
Because that's how one reads, from the beginning of a story to the end.
Each post is like a conversation in a novel. Someone coming late to a
thread can follow the whole conversation from the start and be up to
speed by what has transpired before.
Usenet is dead because most ISP's no longer offer it for free, and
technology has moved on with new shiny toys that take no brains at all
to use.
Jasen Betts
> Unbelievable. I didn't have to mouse scroll down and then back up again to
> see if I missed anything...
if you have to do that you are using the wrong newsreader, or using it
incorrectly.
> and look! You header, and JF's is with your text and the one before it are
> all in order.
no, they aren't visible at all.
> I have seen many articles on top posting and it seems it will be the way of
> the future once people get more modern Usenet browsers that can actually not
> mix up the posting. Funny how these obstinates can use top posting everyday
> for business email and then totally switch when posting in a forum like
> Usenet.
there is no requirement to top post in email.
> I have used a few different newsgroup browsers and they all position the
> curser at the top.
that way I can cursor down throught the message and delete the
unwanted parts and reply to the bits that need attention.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
John Fields
<baug...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Go to the medical boards sometime.
>Arthritis, chronic pain, cancer, etc.
>See if your >99% observation applies.
>When economy of movement, as well
>as a small group that knows what has
>come before, top posting is most practical.
---
Please...
Holding down a scroll key to get to the beginning of a top-posted series
of articles is at least 50% less efficacious than having the oldest
article on top since once you've read the stack and gotten to the bottom
you can type your article there instead of having to scroll back to the
top to do it.
You're right about one thing though, and that's that groups which orient
themselves as if they were email and either pretend or are stupid enough
to think that everyone knows what went before should probably stick to
the email format instead of burdening themselves with learning how to
post properly.
Even Google Groups, that bastion for the clueless states, from:
http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=12348&topic=250
"Summarize what you're following up.
When you click "Reply" under "show options" to follow up an existing
article, Google Groups includes the full article in quotes, with the
cursor at the top of the article. Tempting though it is to just start
typing your message, please STOP and do two things first.
Look at the quoted text and remove parts that are irrelevant.
Then, go to the BOTTOM of the article and start typing there.
Doing this makes it much easier for your readers to get through your
post. They'll have a reminder of the relevant text before your
comment, but won't have to re-read the entire article.
And if your reply appears on a site before the original article does,
they'll get the gist of what you're talking about."
So, you see, even though you pretend to fight valiantly, tooth and nail,
to defend your untenable position, in truth you're reduced yourself to
nothing more than a laughingstock low-grade troll since even the lowest
common denominator is apprised of proper usenetiquette, which you choose
to flaunt for the sole purpose of attracting unwarranted attention by
tilting at windmills and fomenting trouble.
---
>Hmm, now that I think of it, there is an
>enormous number of specific-interest
>groups, more being formed all the time.
>That would suggest top posting being
>more appropriate,
---
As well as being a red herring, that statement is false since bottom and
in-line posting, when appropriate, is the posting style of choice for
anyone who reads from left to right and from top to bottom.
Just think about how you're reading this sentence; are you starting from
the eroteme and reading back back?
I don't think so, ergo: "as above, so below".
---
>along with ignoring
>self-appointed net-cops that want to try
>to force a practice they know to be
>archaic and clumsy.
---
I'd say that applied more to you than to me since I'm merely defending
Google Groups' sage advice while (unless you're trying to troll, which
is more likely) you're trying to tear down a practice which serves
USENET in good stead and replace it with an onerous non-solution to a
non-problem.
Key phrase here is: "Don't fix it if it ain't broke." while what you
seem to be saying is: "If it works, break it so I can have my way."
Amazing what you creeps try to get away with, yes?
JF
Baron
Josepi Inscribed thus:
Wincrap snipped.
--
Best Regards:
Baron.
John Fields
>Unbelievable. I didn't have to mouse scroll down and then back up again to
>see if I missed anything...
>
>and look! You header, and JF's is with your text and the one before it are
>all in order.
>
>I have seen many articles on top posting and it seems it will be the way of
>the future once people get more modern Usenet browsers that can actually not
>mix up the posting. Funny how these obstinates can use top posting everyday
>for business email and then totally switch when posting in a forum like
>Usenet.
>
>I have used a few different newsgroup browsers and they all position the
>curser at the top.
---
That's done as a courtesy to those who are reading the thread for the
first time as it allows them to read the thread using what most of us
accept as conventional chronology.
I suppose you regard it as an unfair intelligence test since you seem to
have so much trouble navigating the thread by moving the "curser" to the
salient part of the thread or to the most recent article.
>There are always special keystrokes to get to the bottom
>but then you have to backtrack to find the top of the entry. Even the
>signatures lines are handled by deleting them. So many groups use this
>method now with the exception of a few old farts from the outdated IRC...LOL
---
"Even the signatures lines are handled by deleting them."???
Poor baby, you really _don't_ know how to use a proper newsreader, do
you?
---
>This should have them cringing in their boots.
---
>I used the words "browser",
>"forum" and a few others that the "everbody has to be like me" trolls like
>to cling onto...LOL
---
Sounds like that puts you squarely in the camp you so loudly denounce,
since you and the rest of your little junta want to saddle everyone with
top posting just to satisfy your bloated egos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_euKhE7rw0&feature=related
---
>Have a good one.
---
I already do.
JF
John Fields
><nos...@nevis.com> wrote in message news:4b46...@news.x-privat.org...
>Usenet reads like a book, top posters are a pain in the ass. Doesn't
>matter anyway, usenet is dead
>Exactly, so why would you start at the bottom with your post?
---
He didn't, he _finished_ at the bottom of the thread.
Moreover, if your "Exactly" indicates agreement, then posting your
reply at the beginning of the book instead of at the end indicates that
you're as ignorant about chronolgy as you are about usenetiquette.
Little surprise from someone who reads USENET with a "browser"
---
>Bottom posting arguments and other general stupidity is killing it.
---
Bottom-posting isn't, since it's the norm for USENET posting, but
general stupidity might be, viewed in the light of your recent posts and
Google's access policies.
However, Michael B, who at:
76754153-f710-4fd0...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
stated:
"Hmm, now that I think of it, there is an
enormous number of specific-interest
groups, more being formed all the time.",
indicating that _he_ thinks USENET is growing.
Do you disagree?
JF
John Fields
<excret...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 18:06:58 -0500, Josepi wrote:
>
>> Dimentia becoming aproblem?
>
>I don' have two minds, only one.
>
>I think you meant "dementia"
---
:-)
JF
nos...@nevis.com
All of the groups I have used since 1996 have shrunk to a few members
who seem to post out of habit or are " just checking in". Some now such
as alt.culture.luddites, are so vacant they don't even have spam posts.
My ISP , as well as a number of others stopped free access to newsgroups
three years ago, which seemed to be about the time new membership in any
of the groups I used began to decline.
keit...@gmail.com
> John Fields wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 00:02:25 -0500, "Josepi" <J...@invaliid.con> wrote:
>
>
> >> Usenet reads like a book, top posters are a pain in the ass. Doesn't
> >> matter anyway, usenet is dead
>
> >> Exactly, so why would you start at the bottom with your post?
>
> > ---
> > He didn't, he _finished_ at the bottom of the thread.
>
> > Moreover, if your "Exactly" indicates agreement, then posting your
> > reply at the beginning of the book instead of at the end indicates that
> > you're as ignorant about chronolgy as you are about usenetiquette.
>
> > Little surprise from someone who reads USENET with a "browser"
> > ---
>
> >> Bottom posting arguments and other general stupidity is killing it.
>
> > ---
> > Bottom-posting isn't, since it's the norm for USENET posting, but
> > general stupidity might be, viewed in the light of your recent posts and
> > Google's access policies.
>
> > However, Michael B, who at:
>
>
> > stated:
>
> > "Hmm, now that I think of it, there is an
> > enormous number of specific-interest
> > groups, more being formed all the time.",
>
> > indicating that _he_ thinks USENET is growing.
>
> > Do you disagree?
>
> > JF
>
> All of the groups I have used since 1996 have shrunk to a few members
> who seem to post out of habit or are " just checking in". Some now such
> as alt.culture.luddites, are so vacant they don't even have spam posts.
> My ISP , as well as a number of others stopped free access to newsgroups
> three years ago, which seemed to be about the time new membership in any
> of the groups I used began to decline.
I still follow several quite active NGs. Some continue to pay for
Usenet access. I've been paying for at least five years, well before
my ISPs dropped free access. It's not expensive.
nos...@nevis.com
Most of my groups have gone from well over 100 posts a day to less than
five a week. One group I follow, Rec.antiques, had over 23,000
subscribers in 1997- 2000, now it has 605, but it goes for weeks without
anything but spam posts. It seems that no new members are coming on
board, the last one out please turn off the lights :~(((((
Baron
I concur. ISP's have allowed Google to effectively pass off Usenet as
their own by killing access via them. The net result is fewer people
being exposed to News Servers and knowing that HTML is not the norm.
--
Best Regards:
Baron.