OT -- Posting

[superman]

OK, now I've read a lot of posts and I was just wondering why people get
annoyed if you top post...I mean isn't the point just to read the message?
So if someone could give me a sufficient reason to "bottom post" i will...

--
Keith S.

[-]Mr.High[-X-]RoLLeR[-]

Even though I hardly post I notice everyone seems to be in a horrible mood
all the time. People reply to post to mention something, not even to answer
what was asked (like what I am just doing).

Now back to your question. I couldn't care less, but ussualy if someone is
asking questions then usualy people will post their answers under them, or
if people are arguing, then each of their points will be discussed under
them.. Sometimes people are too lazy to scroll down to write their reply so
they just top-post.

Whatever just post..

"superman" <kds...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:iMK%8.269618$Bt1.14...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.380 / Virus Database: 213 - Release Date: 7/24/2002

[Thomas Spoetzl]

superman wrote:

But it is easier and much more convenient to read messages which are
written after this common rule.
First the question, second the answer. That愀 natural.
If someone reads this, he can understand the point despite of reading
the whole thing.
If you break this rule, the readers get annoyed cause their feeling of
good style is disturbed.
They think "What a noob! Can愒 he obey the rules?" and stuff like this.
This is the majority of experienced internet geeks so it愀 better to get
accustomed to this style. You will get more positive resonance to your
posts.

cya

[mattic]

Nope, top post always. It is not normal to repeat, verbatim, the question
one has been asked, before giving an answer. The asker knows what's been
asked and is only interested in the reply.

If others wish to join in, then they should make the effort and read back.

"Thomas Spoetzl" <sp...@tularosa.net> wrote in message
news:3D3F8CEC...@tularosa.net...

[[Empty]Dæmon]

mattic <th...@wontwork.com> wrote in message
news:XfM%8.489730$o66.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> Nope, top post always. It is not normal to repeat, verbatim, the question
> one has been asked, before giving an answer. The asker knows what's been
> asked and is only interested in the reply.
>
> If others wish to join in, then they should make the effort and read back.

Its not that one way is better (although bottom posting is has advantages
when there are lost posts involved, or the thread is very long). It just
makes more sense to have a uniform way of posting, people just argue for the
sake of it or because they think they are being different or something.

[mattic]

There are also advantages to top posting such as not having to scroll
through stuff you already know and the FACT that it is quicker (I don't know
about you but I choose not to fuck around).

I'm not arguing for the sake of it, I believe in this shit.

Bottom posters also argue in order to make themselves seem superior. Pretty
pathetic really, the only time these people get to feel superior is when
they play the righteous indignation card about fucking top-posting. Lame
cunts.

"[Empty]Dæmon" <ask.m...@it.com> wrote in message
news:HtN%8.13853$vN6.7...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...

[geej]

>I couldn't care less,

did you know americans say "i could care less".. how messed up is that

[Patrick Heinze]

Mattic wrote:

> There are also advantages to top posting such as not having to scroll
> through stuff you already know and the FACT that it is quicker (I
> don't know about you but I choose not to fuck around).

It is neither quicker nor easier...its just your %%=(? Outloook Express
that makes it easier, since every decent Newsreader will place your
prompt and signature at the end of the Posting.

download oe-quotefix@ http://jump.to/oblivion

Also, most of the time you will find yourself not only answering to one
statement. Quoting correctly the specific question will make reading
your
post much mor easily. Like this:

>I'm not arguing for the sake of it, I believe in this shit.

Nooooooooo ;-)

Next reason: Top posters tend to leave the full quote of the former
Posting under their text. Have a thread of about five posts, and you
will have a Message that is about 20 kb in Size...it is just unnecessary
to enlarge the datavolume in that way, since there are many people that
still use dialup connections!

cu
Patrick

--
"Even though he was an enemy of mine, I had to admit that what he had
accomplished was a brilliant piece of strategy. First, he punched me,
then he kicked me, then he punched me again."
Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey

[mattic]

Yeah, OE, me and 99% of other people use it, so yeah it IS faster. It's also
a perfectly decent newsreader.
People on dial-up should get a grip and drag their arses into the 21st
Century. I do not accept the "I can't get ADSL" argument. ISDN is available
and is cheap. If it's too dear, or too hard, then that's the price you pay
for living where you do. I'm sure there are advantages as well, but fast
internet ain't one of 'em.

"Patrick Heinze" <pat...@indoxx.de> wrote in message
news:ahond6$9rf$1...@nntp-m01.news.aol.com...

[superman]

OK thank you for the arguments and it's just easier for me to top post
seeing as im using Outlook Express. Sorry for making it "harder" for you ppl
to keep up if your "lost" but just scroll down.

And lastly don't argue over top/bottom posting, it's really dumb. I just
wanted to know what the "norm" was, but seeing as it doesn't matter I will
continue to top-post...

--
Keith S.

"mattic" <th...@wontwork.com> wrote in message

news:frT%8.491310$o66.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

[Big-T]

I top post when it's convenient for me or when I think it will be a singular
response. I bottom post when it's appropriate.

Those who bitch and moan about top posters need to get a life and simply
ignore responding to those who top post. Which BTW...is much larger
annoyance.

T

"superman" <kds...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:iMK%8.269618$Bt1.14...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...

[Jethro[AGHL]]

mattic wrote:
>
> Yeah, OE, me and 99% of other people use it, so yeah it IS faster. It's also
> a perfectly decent newsreader.
> People on dial-up should get a grip and drag their arses into the 21st
> Century. I do not accept the "I can't get ADSL" argument.

Why not? What part of it don't you "get". ADSL and cable are available
in most cities. Rural area's are overlooked. (Canada for me.)

>ISDN is available

Wrong again. On my ancient phone line I can only get 26.4Kbps
connections. Digital? Ya right.

> and is cheap. If it's too dear, or too hard, then that's the price you pay
> for living where you do.

> I'm sure there are advantages as well, but fast internet ain't one of 'em.

Too true.

All this talk of "Everyone has cable" is ridiculous. Do you know the
level of highspeed users in the US?
http://www.cabledatacomnews.com/cmic/cmic16.html
"The number of homes marketed for cable modem service exceeded 84
million as of March 31, 2002."

Stats: Total N. American Subscribers - 14,936,479

Total population of Canada (34,000,000 approx. and US 300,000,000
approx.) 334,000,000
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum?cty=US
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum?cty=CA

That's of 334,000,000 potential users, 84 millions (25%) actually have
the option available to them.
Of that 25%, only 18% (15 millions) subscribers got high speed.

That leaves 75% of North Americans with no cable or DSL connection
available to them.
Accept *that* argument.

Jethro
--
Jethro[AGHL] aka Phat_Pinger
Phat Clan: http://phats.clanpages.com
Reply Email: jeff (at) tibben (dot) ca

"Single-player vs multiplayer is like playing with yourself vs
actual sex. Both are entertaining, but it's usually better with real
people
since 'single-player' gets repetetive." -Daywanderer in A.G.G-R

[Alastair Grant]

There is no reason, it's just an ancient fuede. Bottom posting was the
idea in yee days of command line interfaces. You loaded a message, and
you would have to read through the previous messages to make sense.

It all kinda died when they invented Windows. Now people can scroll
down if they don't kow what the thread is about, or even click on the
message above it in the thread.

--
http://www.guardsgame.com
http://www.aligrant.com

"What color is a chameleon on a mirror?"

[mattic]

If it troubles you that much, move. Or stop whinging.

"Jethro[AGHL]" <M...@worknow.ca> wrote in message
news:3D4015D3...@worknow.ca...

[mattic]

Onya, Keith!

"superman" <kds...@hotpop.com> wrote in message

news:xlU%8.280655$iB1.14...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...

[Jethro[AGHL]]

mattic wrote:
>
> If it troubles you that much, move. Or stop whinging.

Yes I whine about it and yes I could move but jackasses who throw out
"Get cable/ADSL" as the answer for everything related to online gaming
and don't have a clue as to what's available in the real world really
steam me.
Get a clue. Then get cable.

Jethro

[mattic]

Didn't think we were talking about online gaming, your comments were in
answer to my post about speed which were, in turn, related to usenet
messages being long and therefore slower due to top posting. I think that if
the reading of longer usenet messages is your problem then yes, ADSL/Cable
IS the answer.

Get relevant or get out!
(Another clue is the 'OT' in the subject line)

"Jethro[AGHL]" <M...@worknow.ca> wrote in message

news:3D4023AF...@worknow.ca...

[Patrick Heinze]

Und dann war da noch Alastair Grant, der folgendes schrieb

<blubb>

> It all kinda died when they invented Windows.

I hate them for doing that *g*

>Now people can scroll
> down if they don't kow what the thread is about, or even click on the
> message above it in the thread.

Maybe you should read the whole thread first before replying to it. You
will find an argument that replying to a specific point in your
pre-posters thoughts is much more easy if you quote correctly...

cya

[Patrick Heinze]

mattic wrote

> Didn't think we were talking about online gaming, your comments were
> in answer to my post about speed which were, in turn, related to
> usenet messages being long and therefore slower due to top posting. I
> think that if the reading of longer usenet messages is your problem
> then yes, ADSL/Cable IS the answer.

Lets calculate:

Let a thread be a line of 20 Postings over a day. Let the first posting
be a 2kb size Message, and every Poster will top post and also add 2 kb
of his own thoughts:

The size of the Thread will be: 2+4+6+8 and so on...
after 20 Postings we will have a total Size of the thread of 420kb.

Now I have 8 Newsgroups I download, with aproximately 100 Postings a day
in each ng

If I am not mistaken, this will be about 16800kb, which is about 16,8 MB

Even with DSL (512) at its highest dl-rate (and we all know about
AOL-Bandwidth *g*) it will take you 175 seconds to get all your Messages
downloaded...to be realistic, I would expect about 10 fucking Minutes!

With ISDN (64) it will take you half an hour, Dialup will do it in 60
Minutes...

So "Get ISDN" is NOT a valid argument, nor is "get DSL"

>Get relevant or get out!

Get Real! Also "move to where DSL is available" is not an argument. I
don't know about you, but I did not choose my City by the availability
of DSL...

And Outlook can be a decent Newsreader if you configure it properly.

[Patrick Heinze]

You guys noticed how the size of the posting grew fast to 4kb, only by
the two posts you did, ya?
That it is now about 200 lines long?
That nobody knows anymore about *what* you are talking when replying to
it?

sheesh - get some common sense

[Jethro[AGHL]]

mattic wrote:
>
> Didn't think we were talking about online gaming, your comments were in
> answer to my post about speed which were, in turn, related to usenet
> messages being long and therefore slower due to top posting. I think that if
> the reading of longer usenet messages is your problem then yes, ADSL/Cable
> IS the answer.
>
> Get relevant or get out!
> (Another clue is the 'OT' in the subject line)

And I'm still trying to get you to understand that Cable/DSL is NOT
always a viable solution for 75% of the population of North America.
Large downloads, emailing, newsgroup posting or online gaming are all
the problems, ADSL/Cable is the answer but it's not the solution.
Next.

[Big-T]

"Patrick Heinze" <pat...@indoxx.de> wrote in message

> Lets calculate:

>
> Let a thread be a line of 20 Postings over a day. Let the first posting
> be a 2kb size Message, and every Poster will top post and also add 2 kb
> of his own thoughts:

some of us top posters wipe out stuff below other top posters. See we
aren't all just inherently "rude" by your "standards".

Whether 2kb or 20 1k posts griping about it...what's the difference?

T

[mattic]

There ya go.....

"Big-T" <bi...@REMOVEbigt.org> wrote in message
news:uk0p842...@corp.supernews.com...

[mattic]

a <snip> is a <snip> whether one top posts or bottom posts.

"Patrick Heinze" <pat...@indoxx.de> wrote in message

news:ahpd6j$40l$3...@nntp-m01.news.aol.com...

[mattic]

What a load of bollocks. The messages will not ALL grow like that. You can't
extrapolate in that manner, universal affirmatives may only be partially
transposed.

No, you probably didn't choose your city for ADSL availability. You chose it
because of a hundred different reasons. It's probably a nice place to live
and has some lifestyle advantages for you. And that is exactly what I'm
talking about, if access to ADSL is important enough to you, you'll move
where you can get it. If you are THAT inconvenienced by top posting slowing
you down, you will move where net access is faster. I suspect that you're
not and you should therefore stop crying and get on with the things you
enjoy.

Of course, bottom posting doesn't mean that the message doesn't grow,
size-wise it's exactly the same.

By the way, ADSL can be 1.5Mb/s. ISDN may be anything up to 2Mb/s (for a
single service)

Remind me not to use you as my lawyer.

"Patrick Heinze" <pat...@indoxx.de> wrote in message

news:ahpd6h$40l$2...@nntp-m01.news.aol.com...

[mattic]

Not viable? Depends how much you want it. You could always move house.

"Jethro[AGHL]" <M...@worknow.ca> wrote in message

news:3D404539...@worknow.ca...

[Patrick Heinze]

Hi!

Big-T wrote:
> some of us top posters wipe out stuff below other top posters. See we
> aren't all just inherently "rude" by your "standards".

No offense meant...but I believe I gave some other good reasons NOT to
top post...when I do not wish to refer to a special point of my former
poster I delete the whole thing.

If quoting was just about reading what the former guy said, it would
make no sense, since I could look it up in the former posting
itself...no...it is about making clear what I am talkning about,
especially in long postings, but it makes sense in short postings, too

Like this:

> Whether 2kb or 20 1k posts griping about it...what's the difference?

I came to 420kb per thread that would usually have 40kb...that is a
difference! Ten times bigger, and I am talking about downloading from 10
Newsgroups...

cu
Patrick

[innocent bystander]

"superman" <kds...@hotpop.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:iMK%8.269618$Bt1.14...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...

> OK, now I've read a lot of posts and I was just wondering why people get
> annoyed if you top post...I mean isn't the point just to read the message?
> So if someone could give me a sufficient reason to "bottom post" i will...

This newsgroup consists mainly of question-answer type posts, so here i guess top posting is ok.

However, there are newsgroups where threads sometimes consists of over a hundred posts. Therefore
some sort of system is required for making the threads coherent. My experience of such newsgroups is
that you reply below previous post according to the hierarchy displayed in your newsreader.

Sometimes threads grow long and not rarely changes subject entirely. This very thread is an
excellent example of this. In that case it's appropriate to simply snip previous posts that no
longer is releveant to the discussion, making it easy to overlook.

So in clonclusion my answer would be yes with a but....

--
Listening to silence

[innocent bystander]

"mattic" <th...@wontwork.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:XfM%8.489730$o66.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> Nope, top post always. It is not normal to repeat, verbatim, the question
> one has been asked, before giving an answer.

But posting your answer after the question makes the thread more easy to follow.

> The asker knows what's been
> asked and is only interested in the reply.

What if the question turns into a discussion?

--
Listening to silence

[mattic]

Then I believe that, as most people have memories longer than that of a
goldfish, one would remember what the last post said and just want to read
the next comment without having to scroll through.

Or go to a chatroom.

"innocent bystander" <sp...@someoneelse.com> wrote in message
news:ahq3r0$ujlbl$1...@ID-130061.news.dfncis.de...

[Patrick Heinze]

mattic wrote:

> What a load of bollocks. The messages will not ALL grow like that.
> You can't extrapolate in that manner, universal affirmatives may only
> be partially transposed.

No, I can't. I was writing about the worst case...sad but true, the
three postings of Superman and you ARE this worst case.

> If you are THAT
> inconvenienced by top posting slowing you down, you will move where
> net access is faster. I suspect that you're not and you should
> therefore stop crying and get on with the things you enjoy.

No...I live in a city whre DSL is available, DSL is on the way. I talk
about people that are to damn lazy to cut the post they don't refer to.
And that is not just more hard to read, it will also enlarge the traffic
to a level where it may even take a while on DSL to transfer it.

As I wrote. If you are top posting, it makes absolutely no sense to let
the full quote in yer posting. It takes three keys to kill that quote...

> Of course, bottom posting doesn't mean that the message doesn't grow,
> size-wise it's exactly the same.

Yes it does. Proper quoting means to cut the passages I am not refering
to.

> By the way, ADSL can be 1.5Mb/s. ISDN may be anything up to 2Mb/s
> (for a single service)

And I wrote about the mlst common form (in Germany) 512 /64 k...any
questions?

> Remind me not to use you as my lawyer.

Remind me not to use you as my client. People that are resistant to
learning and incompatible to social life are no good customers at the
court

[Patrick Heinze]

mattic wrote:

> Not viable? Depends how much you want it. You could always move house.

Whats this shit? Only because you got DSL does not mean everyone needs
it. You pay about 35 Euros (you know that, right? European Currency ~1:1
with dollar) for one month of DSL.

Maybe people that live in a country where they don't have DSL? Maybe
they can't afford it?
Maybe my dad just wants to read his f****** usenet-articles. Or anyone
else.

I need it because I intend to do a lot of onlinegaming.
I won't need it just for the fucking Newsgroups!

What you are doing is to sabotage the Idea of the global village by
fucking off everybody that does not have DSL with some Megabytes he has
to download just to read his damn posts. The Usenet exists very long,
and it was also used when people had some fucking 14,4kbps Modems and a
brain!

I guess your Dad pays for your onlinetime, so no wonder you don't know
about the REALITY out there!

[Patrick Heinze]

mattic:

> a <snip> is a <snip> whether one top posts or bottom posts.

YOU did not a single fucking snip in the whole thread...you always left
the whole former thread at the bottom. If I was just interested in what
people wrote five postings ago I can easiliy look it up with my
newsreader!

[mattic]

Stay relevant, son. I was commenting on snips not counting it as one of my
common practises.
The fact that I didn't snip in no way diminishes my original argument.
You're not very good at this, are you?

"Patrick Heinze" <pat...@indoxx.de> wrote in message

news:ahr2hr$ei6$3...@nntp-m01.news.aol.com...

[innocent bystander]

"mattic" <th...@wontwork.com> skrev i meddelandet

news:yY709.493526$o66.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au

> Then I believe that, as most people have memories longer than that of
> a goldfish, one would remember what the last post said and just want
> to read the next comment without having to scroll through.

Provided you joined the discussion from the very start. And that's not always the case.

--
Listening to silence

[mattic]

Firstly - cunt
Secondly - Bottom posting does NOT mean that the thread doesn't grow.
Snipping means the thread doesn't grow. You will find that you will better
master arguments when have mastered correct forms of comprehension and
relevance.
Thirdly - You made no attempt to clarify that you were referring to the most
commonly used ADSL speed in Germany, you said it was 512k at it's highest
download rate. I notice that you make no comment on your monumental fuck-up
as far as ISDN is concerned
Fourthly - You just don't have the smarts or the vocabulary to take umbrage
with me. Give it up, your making a percy of yourself.
Lastly - cunt.

"Patrick Heinze" <pat...@indoxx.de> wrote in message

news:ahr2hn$ei6$1...@nntp-m01.news.aol.com...

[mattic]

I was not attempting to heap derision on anyone who doesn't have ADSL. My
point was that if you want ADSL bad enough you could move to where it is
available. Most people want to have their cake and eat it.

During this whole thread I have said that it's YOUR decision where you
choose to live. There are probably compelling reasons why you made these
choices. If your main thrust in life is to have lots of land and a tranquil
setting, you will choose to live in the country, but don't expect high-speed
internet connections or expect everyone in the city to behave in a manner so
that YOU have an easier time on the net.

If you can't afford ADSL, then that's just tough. Get a fucking job, quit
smoking, save up, don't by the football season tickets, whatever. Like I
said it comes down to choice. You can't have everything so you have to
decide what's most important to you. Again, don't expect others to adapt to
you just coz you've got a slow connection

You really don't have a clue, do you?

Poor old Patrick, it's been so long since he's had a blow-job, he's
forgotten what it tastes like!

By the way, I pay my own way

"Patrick Heinze" <pat...@indoxx.de> wrote in message

news:ahr2hp$ei6$2...@nntp-m01.news.aol.com...

[mattic]

That's true, I'll give you that. but snipping will have the same effect.

"innocent bystander" <sp...@someoneelse.com> wrote in message

news:ahr4h8$vj44l$1...@ID-130061.news.dfncis.de...

[Patrick Heinze]

mattic wrote a load of shit:

> You really don't have a clue, do you?
>
> Poor old Patrick, it's been so long since he's had a blow-job, he's
> forgotten what it tastes like!
>

>Firstly - cunt

>
>Fourthly - You just don't have the smarts or the vocabulary to take
>umbrage with me. Give it up, your making a percy of yourself.
>
>Lastly - cunt.
>

>You're not very good at this, are you?

I guess this collection says it all...

I guess it makes no sense to argue with some guy that thinks my lack of
a FOREIGN language has anything to do with this topic.

Patrick

[mattic]

It's not the language (which I think is excellent, nothing but admiration
from me, there), it's the ideas and concepts you struggle with. Also the
attention to detail. Unusual for a German. You're probably young.

"Patrick Heinze" <pat...@indoxx.de> wrote in message

news:ahr8k0$ofh$1...@nntp-m01.news.aol.com...

[innocent bystander]

"mattic" <th...@wontwork.com> skrev i meddelandet

news:hW809.493745$o66.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au

> That's true, I'll give you that. but snipping will have the same
> effect.

I'm not sure i got you there buddy. But if i did i can only say that snipping should be done with
care : ) You don't wanna snip relevant stuff out...

--
Listening to silence

[[Empty]Dæmon]

mattic <th...@wontwork.com> wrote in message
news:9E809.493649$o66.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> Firstly - cunt
> Secondly - Bottom posting does NOT mean that the thread doesn't grow.
> Snipping means the thread doesn't grow. You will find that you will better
> master arguments when have mastered correct forms of comprehension and
> relevance.
> Thirdly - You made no attempt to clarify that you were referring to the
most
> commonly used ADSL speed in Germany, you said it was 512k at it's highest
> download rate. I notice that you make no comment on your monumental
fuck-up
> as far as ISDN is concerned
> Fourthly - You just don't have the smarts or the vocabulary to take
umbrage
> with me. Give it up, your making a percy of yourself.
> Lastly - cunt.

No one knows wot you are on about........learn to structure your posts to
make more sense.

c*nt.

[[Empty]Dæmon]

mattic <th...@wontwork.com> wrote in message

news:BS809.493731$o66.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> I was not attempting to heap derision on anyone who doesn't have ADSL.

1. Learn to snip.
2. Learn to argue in the real world, BB is NOT globally available, dont be
such an ignorant fool.

[[Empty]Dæmon]

mattic <th...@wontwork.com> wrote in message

news:hW809.493745$o66.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> That's true, I'll give you that. but snipping will have the same effect.

Which you apparentley are not able of doing.......also, this post makes alot
of sense now innit?

This is why top posting is shit, but of course, 'your' way is somehow better
(because OE5 puts your cursor there LOL, n00b).

[mattic]

Yep, that's what I meant. Agree with you totally.

"innocent bystander" <sp...@someoneelse.com> wrote in message

news:ahrek9$vi7sg$1...@ID-130061.news.dfncis.de...

[innocent bystander]

"mattic" <th...@wontwork.com> skrev i meddelandet

news:uHb09.494824$o66.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> Yep, that's what I meant. Agree with you totally.

So are you gonna stop top posting then?

--
Listening to silence

[mattic]

I don't suppose your nose bleeds every 28 days, does it?

"[Empty]Dćmon" <ask.m...@it.com> wrote in message
news:Xb909.17113$vN6.9...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...

[mattic]

If you want to know what I am on about you will have to put some effort in
and read back.
For fuck's sake don't use an asterisk when swearing, it takes all the sting
out of it, cunt. (See organization above)

I see by your subsequent posts that you have not read anything. Therefore
you are getting it wrong left, right and centre. Quit, little boy, you're
making a prick of yourself.

"[Empty]Dæmon" <ask.m...@it.com> wrote in message
news:v7909.17101$vN6.9...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...

[mattic]

LOL, you are a real wanker, you are! Hahahaha how fucking lame to snip the
bit of my post that TOTALLY fucks up your argument. Honestly, some of you
cunts on here are so far behind, you can't hear the band playing! ROFL!

"[Empty]Dæmon" <ask.m...@it.com> wrote in message

news:wa909.17108$vN6.9...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...

[mattic]

No, man. I agree about the snipping, how it can be confusing sometimes. But
that's the same whether one top-posts or bottom-posts.

Top posting is better for so many reasons. Hanging on to out-dated ways when
technology has moved on, is just insane. That's just my opinion. It also
happens to be right! ;-)

"innocent bystander" <sp...@someoneelse.com> wrote in message

news:ahrhvj$vd65j$1...@ID-130061.news.dfncis.de...

[Big-T]

like I said I top post when appropriate, I bottom post when appropriate and
I section post when appropriate...but I don't post by anyone else's
standards but my own

T

[innocent bystander]

> Top posting is better for so many reasons. Hanging on to out-dated ways when
> technology has moved on, is just insane.

What out-dated ways?

--
Listening to silence

[Vu]

OMG this thread about top posting vs bottom posting is crazy!
I really don't care wether top or bottom post, I like to think
that I'm smart enought to find the text I'm looking for without
taking too much time.
Also, just so you guys don't get too annoyed by me...

"superman" <kds...@hotpop.com> wrote in message

news:iMK%8.269618$Bt1.14...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> OK, now I've read a lot of posts and I was just wondering why people get
> annoyed if you top post...I mean isn't the point just to read the message?
> So if someone could give me a sufficient reason to "bottom post" i will...
>

> --
> Keith S.

I'm gonna start writing at the bottom of the message too, so I
don't look like I'm favouring one style over the other and get
flamed by people saying I should do it the other way.
And honestly, when a thread about something as trivial as this,
it doesn't matter to me wether you top or bottom post, because
I get so lazy that I don't even read the posts... (=o

Vu.

[Patrick Heinze]

mattic wrote:

> It's not the language (which I think is excellent, nothing but
> admiration from me, there), it's the ideas and concepts you struggle
> with.

I just don't understand why you don't take this two seconds to delete
the crap under your Mail...it won't hurt you...and you make sure the
amount of data processed at the Newsserver stays small so everyone (also
people with dialup) are able participate. As I said...I don't have
problems with that since I've got ISDN and soon I'll have DSL

>Also the attention to detail. Unusual for a German.

gnhhh... you got some very strange thoughts in your mind about people
who coincidentally have the same nationality...

>You're probably young.

To be precise: I am 21 years old. Don't know if that is young to you...I
guess I am older than the generic cs-player..

cu

[mattic]

Good onya!

"Big-T" <bi...@REMOVEbigt.org> wrote in message
news:uk2mrv5...@corp.supernews.com...

[mattic]

If you have to ask, you'll never know. I consider the whole bottom-post
thing to be old hat.

"innocent bystander" <sp...@someoneelse.com> wrote in message

news:ahrmas$veb8e$1...@ID-130061.news.dfncis.de...

[Patrick Heinze]

Big-T wrote:

> like I said I top post when appropriate, I bottom post when
> appropriate and I section post when appropriate...

Hm...I agree that there is no overall rule for quoting that makes sense
all the time...but bottom posting, such as top posting don't make any
sense at all...

>but I don't post by
> anyone else's standards but my own

Snip it or refer to it...I don't want you to do this because it's a
rule, but because it makes a lot of sense to do so...

[mattic]

Hehehe, you legend! I'm the same. I don't really care if people bottom-post.
I happen to think top-posting is better, but it doesn't trouble me if people
bottom-post. The only reason I get in to stouches like this is I HATE
self-righteous wankers who harang top-posters. Also, I will fight ignorance
and bullshit while I still have breath in me!

"Vu" <v_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:r6e09.495293$o66.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

[Patrick Heinze]

Vu wrote:

> I'm gonna start writing at the bottom of the message too, so I
> don't look like I'm favouring one style over the other and get
> flamed by people saying I should do it the other way.

And both of it just makes no sense

> And honestly, when a thread about something as trivial as this,
> it doesn't matter to me wether you top or bottom post, because
> I get so lazy that I don't even read the posts... (=o

Maybe you should read the whole fucking thread before posting such crap!
There are arguments against top or bottom posting...even if after
reading the thread you decide to keep shitposting, you should not say
its trivial!

[mattic]

Yep, young. No problems, I was a real upstart when I was 21. I choose not to
delete. You choose to read. You also choose to add a fairly lengthy
signature, that surely flies in the face of what you are proposing I do.
Practise what you preach.

"Patrick Heinze" <pat...@indoxx.de> wrote in message

news:ahrrma$b00$1...@nntp-m01.news.aol.com...

[mattic]

Nice backflip!

"Patrick Heinze" <pat...@indoxx.de> wrote in message

news:ahrrpn$b41$1...@nntp-m01.news.aol.com...

[mattic]

Erm....I think he was trying to be amusing, man. Relax. If you spent more
time laughing and less time securing the rights to all the sun-loungers in
Ibiza at 5 O'Clock in the morning, the world would be a happier place.

"Patrick Heinze" <pat...@indoxx.de> wrote in message

news:ahrs4r$bgf$1...@nntp-m01.news.aol.com...

[Patrick Heinze]

mattic wrote:

> Nice backflip!

What is? I never said that bottom posting would make any sense to me...
I said correct quoting and snipping away the rest would make sense!

[Patrick Heinze]

Und dann war da noch mattic, der folgendes schrieb

> Yep, young. No problems, I was a real upstart when I was 21.

That dosn't make a statement correct or incorrect in any way...can we
talk about CONTENTS now pleas?

>I choose
> not to delete. You choose to read. You also choose to add a fairly
> lengthy signature, that surely flies in the face of what you are
> proposing I do. Practise what you preach.

Now we are at a point where I don't understand what you are talking
about...

1. The sig is 5 lines in length, which is correct
2. I never took Jack Handey to be serious in what he is telling us...

[Patrick Heinze]

damn...I knew I was forgetting something *g*

[innocent bystander]

"mattic" <th...@wontwork.com> skrev i meddelandet

news:lne09.495319$o66.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> If you have to ask, you'll never know. I consider the whole bottom-post
> thing to be old hat.

Why? Contrary to your opinion this media hasn't changed much since it's introduction. A netiquette
for this has developed over the years, and it is widely used, regardless what you think or "know".

What's so state-of-the-art? The fact that the latest version of OE replys on top instead of below
previous messages?

--
Listening to silence

[Big-T]

"Patrick Heinze" <pat...@indoxx.de> wrote in message

> Hm...I agree that there is no overall rule for quoting that makes sense
> all the time...but bottom posting, such as top posting don't make any
> sense at all...

The above sentence doesn't make any sense if you want the truth. :)

But if you meant that "top posting" doesn't make any sense then you are dead
wrong. Many times I will reply to a post that may be directed to me and
many times it will be the only reply necessary. When that is the case it is
appropriate to top post to that person seeing how the two know what's going
on. I don't post to be convenient for lurkers when a message is directed
specifically at me. I'll also top post when I only plan on answering one
time.

> Snip it or refer to it...I don't want you to do this because it's a
> rule, but because it makes a lot of sense to do so...

Well you can't please everyone.

T

[mattic]

Yes.

"innocent bystander" <sp...@someoneelse.com> wrote in message

news:ahruo4$v8voq$1...@ID-130061.news.dfncis.de...

[mattic]

I started out being logical with Patrick. Unfortunately, as the posts wore
on, I realised that he's an arseclown with no idea. I agree with you totally
and wish you good luck on your quest to educate this twat.

"Big-T" <bi...@REMOVEbigt.org> wrote in message

news:uk314h2...@corp.supernews.com...

[mattic]

It's still unnecessary and adds to the size. I've already read it so you
should snip it.
Your rules, not mine. Game over, fool.

In about 10 years, you will realise that you don't know every fucking thing.
In the meantime, you will continue to act in this manner. This has a very
real bearing on CONTENTS of your arguments which are largely shite and
irrelevant.

"Patrick Heinze" <pat...@indoxx.de> wrote in message

news:ahrtt3$cv4$1...@nntp-m01.news.aol.com...

[mattic]

Waaahhh, mummy! The nasty man is chewing up my bandwith! Whine, bitch, spit,
cry, fap, fap, fap, fap.....

"Patrick Heinze" <pat...@indoxx.de> wrote in message

news:ahru7c$d8e$1...@nntp-m01.news.aol.com...

[innocent bystander]

"mattic" <th...@wontwork.com> skrev i meddelandet

news:gyl09.496135$o66.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au
> Yes.

Then you might also have noticed that threads follow a certain hierarchy, i.e. questions are
followed by their answers. What do you make of that?

--
Listening to silence

[mattic]

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some posts ago.

Mate, if you want to get in to this, read back. I gave a perfectly lucid and
compelling rebuttal of this nonsense about 50 posts ago.

Along the lines of: In a conversation, one doesn't repeat, verbatim, the
question one has just been asked before giving one's reply. One simply
replies.

"innocent bystander" <sp...@someoneelse.com> wrote in message

news:ahspks$v0nci$1...@ID-130061.news.dfncis.de...

[Patrick Heinze]

Und dann war da noch Big-T, der folgendes schrieb

> But if you meant that "top posting" doesn't make any sense then you
> are dead wrong. Many times I will reply to a post that may be
> directed to me and many times it will be the only reply necessary.

Okay...still my argument that the Message will fastly grow up when this
will NOT be the final reply, since wankers like mattic (hey mattic: YOU
started this language) wont snip it in any case...how can you predict
that ist is the last time?

> When that is the case it is appropriate to top post to that person
> seeing how the two know what's going on. I don't post to be
> convenient for lurkers when a message is directed specifically at me.

Now what? I talked about Newsgroup Posting. When forwarding a Message
top or Bottom Posting makes perfect sense. In a News Group it does not

CU

[Patrick Heinze]

Und dann war da noch mattic, der folgendes schrieb

> It's still unnecessary and adds to the size. I've already read it so

> you should snip it.
> Your rules, not mine. Game over, fool.

You are right...shit like your text should not be quoted :-P

> In about 10 years, you will realise that you don't know every fucking
> thing. In the meantime, you will continue to act in this manner. This
> has a very real bearing on CONTENTS of your arguments which are
> largely shite and irrelevant.

Yeah...you are the great man...instead of posting an argument you just
say: "When I was young I was shite like you, too".
Yes Sir, don't give up the hope on my Sir, gonna be as wise as you some
day.

Do you always fuck with people in that way, not to take them seriously?

Now...killfile

[mattic]

For fuck's sake! Give it a rest, you peanut, you have no idea and you talk
shite. I can think of no other way to explain this shit. You are too stupid
to understand, the next step would be simply to belt you and move on.

"Patrick Heinze" <pat...@indoxx.de> wrote in message

news:ahtg15$8qk$1...@nntp-m01.news.aol.com...

[mattic]

(just in case I'm not on killfile yet)

I've posted all the arguments under the sun, you're just too pig-shit thick
to get them. Or you're to cocky to accept them. Either way you are
irrelevant, you change the subject and your understanding five times a day.
Everyone can see through you, you are making a twat of yourself.

Incidently, putting someone on killfile? Hahahaha, you lame cunt! Doing the
cyber-equivilent of running away with your hands over your ears, screaming,
"La, la, la, la, la,!" HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Real mature. Fuckwit.

"Patrick Heinze" <pat...@indoxx.de> wrote in message

news:ahtg17$8qk$2...@nntp-m01.news.aol.com...

[Vu]

"Patrick Heinze" <pat...@indoxx.de> wrote in message

news:ahrs4r$bgf$1...@nntp-m01.news.aol.com...

> Vu wrote:
> > And honestly, when a thread about something as trivial as this,
> > it doesn't matter to me wether you top or bottom post, because
> > I get so lazy that I don't even read the posts... (=o
>
> Maybe you should read the whole fucking thread before posting such crap!
> There are arguments against top or bottom posting...even if after
> reading the thread you decide to keep shitposting, you should not say
> its trivial!

OMG! Look, I'm bottom posting now!!!

*News Flash* - There is other shit going on in the world!
I have a life, and I don't read _every_ post on this or the
other five news groups I subscribe to. The fact that you
(and maybe some others) get so fired up about wether top or
bottom posting is better certainly *is* trivial.

Going to Uni - not trivial.
Hanging out with friends - not trivial.
Taking my little sister to the hospital after an asthma attack - not
trivial.

Whinging about someone top-posting or bottom-posting on
a news group about Counter-Strike - very fucking trivial.

If arguments about top/bottom posting is all that keeps you
going, then good luck to you. I'm gonna see if someone out
there needs help with CS, s/he probably won't care if I top
post or bottom post if I can be of some help.

--
Vu Le
v_...@hotmail.com

MESSAGES YOU WILL NEVER FIND ON A HALLMARK CARD

13. Congratulations on your new bundle of joy.
Did you ever find out who the father was?

14. You are such a good friend that if we were on
a sinking ship and there was only one life jacket....
I'd miss you heaps and think of you often.

[mattic]

Yeah, the worls needs some balance. In accordance with that, I'll top-post
this to balance your bottom-post! Hehehe.

"Vu" <v_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:16t09.498060$o66.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

[mattic]

Make that 'world'

"mattic" <th...@wontwork.com> wrote in message
news:Nat09.498069$o66.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

[Vu]

"mattic" <th...@wontwork.com> wrote in message
news:Nat09.498069$o66.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> Yeah, the worls needs some balance. In accordance with that, I'll top-post
> this to balance your bottom-post! Hehehe.

You want balance? Read on :)

Once upon a time in the Kingdom of Heaven, God went missing for six days.
Eventually, Michael the archangel found him, resting on the seventh day.
He inquired of God, "Where have you been?"
God sighed a deep sigh of satisfaction and proudly pointed downwards
through the clouds, "Look Michael, look what I've made."
Archangel Michael looked puzzled and said, "What is it?"
"It's a planet," replied God, "and I've put LIFE on it. I'm going to
call it Earth and it's going to be a great place of balance."
"Balance?" inquired Michael, still confused.
God explained, pointing to different parts of Earth,
"For example, Northern Europe will be a place of great opportunity and
wealth while Southern Europe is going to be poor. The Middle East over
there will be a hot spot. Over there I've placed a continent of white
people and over there is a continent of black people," God continued,
pointing to different countries. "This one will be extremely hot and
arid while this one will be very cold and covered in ice."
The Archangel, impressed by Gods work, then pointed to a large land mass
in the top corner and asked, "What's that one?"
"Ah," said God. "That's Canada, the most glorious place on Earth.
There's beautiful mountains, lakes, rivers, streams and an exquisite
coast-line. The people from Canada are going to be modest, intelligent
and humorous and they're going to be found traveling the world. They'll
be extremely sociable, hard-working and high-achieving, and they will be
known throughout the world as diplomats and carriers of peace. I'm also
going to give them super-human, undefeatable ice hockey players who will
be admired and feared by all who come across them."
Michael gasped in wonder and admiration but then proclaimed.
"What about balance, God? You said there will be BALANCE!"
God replied wisely,
"Wait until you see the loud-mouth bastards I'm putting next to them."

[GeWee]

I wish I had started this thread. I would feel very proud to have trolled so
many posts

[innocent bystander]

"mattic" <th...@wontwork.com> skrev i meddelandet

news:x7m09.496283$o66.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au

> I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some posts ago.
>
> Mate, if you want to get in to this, read back. I gave a perfectly
> lucid and compelling rebuttal of this nonsense about 50 posts ago.

What post was that?

> Along the lines of: In a conversation, one doesn't repeat, verbatim,
> the question one has just been asked before giving one's reply.

Here, conditions are a bit different to a regular "real world" conversation.

> One
> simply replies.

If you top post you will ruin the thread's coherence. For instance i have to delete my previous post
in order to reply because you insist on answering it on top.

There are rules made up for the sole reason the ease things up around here.

--
Listening to silence

[Patrick Heinze]

Und dann war da noch mattic, der folgendes schrieb

> (just in case I'm not on killfile yet)

You are not, but YOu will be this second. Killfiling is the equivalent
of muting some sucker in a CS game...know these guys? Running around
crying "gnahgnahgnah" what ever...since you only seem to exist of
accusations, racism (think about this sentence about germans) and bad
words (not to mention the problem you have with homosexuals) I will just
do that with you...

so long, sucker

[Mark]

LMFAO to the power of 1 billion.

[mattic]

I disagree entirely. I find it easier to read top-posted threads. I find it
easier to make top-posted threads. I guess we're just different. And as you
can't be bothered reading back like I told you. Just forget it and get on
with doing your old thing.

"innocent bystander" <sp...@someoneelse.com> wrote in message

news:ahtvk5$uncu1$1...@ID-130061.news.dfncis.de...

[mattic]

ROFL! I fucking KNEW I wasn't on killfile! Hahahaha, you are sooo weak!
Telling lies now are you? "Oooo, you nasty man, mattic, you're on killfile!"
HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Racism? I have no idea what race you are, I only know you are German. I know
that you are a clueless arse but that has nothing to do with you being
German. Most Germans I know are good blokes, if a little rigid.

It's so funny that you accuse me of racism, you really do have no idea what
race is, do you? You think that it's something to do with your nationality!

You are an absolute crack-up, mate! I'm so glad I found you. I was gonna
waste money buying a Blackadder DVD but you've saved me hundreds. You are,
quite simply, the best comic relief on the net! Thank-you.

I don't recall indicating having a problem with homosexuals in any of my
posts. If you have picked something up, please give me an example. If, as I
suspect, you are using the jibe as an insult, it just won't wash, chummy. I
have no prob whatsoever with poofs, so being called one isn't even an
insult. It would also mean, of course, that it's you that has the problem.
Have you seen Americam beauty?

Finally, however you try to mitigate kill-filing, it's still lame and
cowardly, but then most mouthy 21-year-olds will back down when faced with a
worthy adversary. Tata, cuntly, you lost.

"Patrick Heinze" <pat...@indoxx.de> wrote in message

news:ahu2pk$fre$1...@nntp-m01.news.aol.com...

[mattic]

I have my moments...:-)

"Mark" <marks...@free.fr> wrote in message
news:3D42A2EA...@free.fr...

[superman]

I am very proud of it and GeWee thank you for your support...

--
Keith S.

"GeWee" wrote in message

[innocent bystander]

"mattic" <th...@wontwork.com> skrev i meddelandet

news:dNx09.499530$o66.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au

> I disagree entirely. I find it easier to read top-posted threads.

If the thread is no longer than two posts then you're right. However, things get a little
complicated when you're dealing with really long threads like this one. If you can't agree on a
mutual method to make everything stick together the whole thread will just turn into a confused heap
of posts. As a result someone has to snip previous posts because he/she won't use the same method as
the other person he/she is discussing with.

There is however one way that is more commonly used - and makes more sense - and that is bottom
posting.

> I find it easier to make top-posted threads.

No doubt.

> I guess we're just different. And as you can't be bothered reading back like I told you.

How am i supposed to do that when you refer to a previous post only with a vague comment as "about
50 posts ago"...

Another fine example why you shouldn't top post: You are forced to snip out sometimes important
information that could have been left intact...

> Just forget it and get on with doing your old thing.

What about my question? Are you just gonna pretend i never asked it.

--
Listening to silence

[[Empty]Dæmon]

mattic <th...@wontwork.com> wrote in message

news:Wjc09.494942$o66.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> LOL, you are a real wanker, you are! Hahahaha how fucking lame to snip the
> bit of my post that TOTALLY fucks up your argument. Honestly, some of you
> cunts on here are so far behind, you can't hear the band playing! ROFL!

You know u are wrong so you resort to acting like a child, you prolly are
one so its not surprising.

[mattic]

You had a question? Sorry I missed it and I can't see it now as you've
snipped it.

I do agree with most of your comments here, though. It can get confusing
with top and bottom posts in the same thread.

But that doesn't mean that everyone should now bottom post. It would clear
up the confusion just as well if everyone top posted. I don't believe that
bottom posting is more common, at least, not in the newsgroups I frequent.

In my experience, top posting is more prevalent. But then most of the
newsgroups I go to are Australian ones and Australia has a progressive
culture. Maybe this has something to do with it.

I honestly find top-posting better all round, I've given my reasons, I
believe they are compelling. You obviously believe in yours just as much, I
respect that. We're not going to agree, shall we stop wasting eachother's
time?

"innocent bystander" <sp...@someoneelse.com> wrote in message

news:ahufi3$vgdjh$1...@ID-130061.news.dfncis.de...

[[Empty]Dæmon]

mattic <th...@wontwork.com> wrote in message

news:Wjc09.494943$o66.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> If you want to know what I am on about you will have to put some effort in
> and read back.
> For fuck's sake don't use an asterisk when swearing, it takes all the
sting
> out of it, cunt. (See organization above)
>
> I see by your subsequent posts that you have not read anything. Therefore
> you are getting it wrong left, right and centre. Quit, little boy, you're
> making a prick of yourself.

Maybe in your eyes :/ But then i dont really count your opionin as you cant
seem to structure a sentance without swearing, I am sensing a virgin but I
could be wrong.

[innocent bystander]

"mattic" <th...@wontwork.com> skrev i meddelandet

news:QrI09.503849$o66.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au

> You had a question? Sorry I missed it and I can't see it now as you've
> snipped it.

I repeat:

"Then you might also have noticed that threads follow a certain hierarchy, i.e. questions are
followed by their answers. What do you make of that?"

You said:

"I gave a perfectly lucid and compelling rebuttal of this nonsense about 50 posts ago."

What rebuttal was that?

> I do agree with most of your comments here, though. It can get
> confusing with top and bottom posts in the same thread.
>
> But that doesn't mean that everyone should now bottom post.

That's not really my point.

> It would
> clear up the confusion just as well if everyone top posted.

Naturally. But bottom posting makes more sense.

> I don't
> believe that bottom posting is more common, at least, not in the
> newsgroups I frequent.

Which are?

> In my experience, top posting is more prevalent. But then most of the
> newsgroups I go to are Australian ones and Australia has a progressive
> culture. Maybe this has something to do with it.

Please don't make this a cultural matter.

> I honestly find top-posting better all round, I've given my reasons, I
> believe they are compelling. You obviously believe in yours just as
> much, I respect that. We're not going to agree, shall we stop wasting
> eachother's time?

If i considered this a waste of time i would have stopped replying long ago.

--
Listening to silence

[mattic]

QED (again) this is great!

"[Empty]Dćmon" <ask.m...@it.com> wrote in message
news:WqI09.23887$vN6.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...

[mattic]

The swearing is used for emphasis, why are you afraid of it? (See
organization)

"[Empty]Dćmon" <ask.m...@it.com> wrote in message

news:htI09.23896$vN6.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...

[mattic]

I did answer your question (See below)
I followed the rebuttal comment up with, "Something along the lines of..."
but you have seen fit to snip that as well.
It doesn't matter what the newsgroups are.
Telling something like it is is not trying to turn it into a cultural
matter. I'm merely relaying my experiences.
I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU! There is NOTHING you can say that will convince me
that I should bottom post. You are wasting your time.
Get on with your thing.

"innocent bystander" <sp...@someoneelse.com> wrote in message

news:ahvl26$10pi10$1...@ID-130061.news.dfncis.de...

[innocent bystander]

"mattic" <th...@wontwork.com> skrev i meddelandet

news:GhJ09.504016$o66.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au

> I did answer your question (See below)
> I followed the rebuttal comment up with, "Something along the lines
> of..." but you have seen fit to snip that as well.

That wasn't really an answer to my question. I will ask again.

Why do you think newsreaders like OE or Agent uses a thread hierarchy where a post is followed by
it's answer?

> It doesn't matter what the newsgroups are.

Don't use them as an argument then.

> Telling something like it is is not trying to turn it into a cultural
> matter. I'm merely relaying my experiences.

And since you're unwilling to give an example of this your argument turns invalid.

> I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU! There is NOTHING you can say that will
> convince me that I should bottom post.

Why are you so reluctant to common usenet manners?

> You are wasting your time. Get on with your thing.

I consider that my own problem and not yours.

--
Listening to silence

[mattic]

OE doesn't do that. I have no experience of other newsreaders, nor do I wish
to have.
The newsgroups are irrelevant, the argument is valid.
Common to whom? In my opinion, you are in the minority. The times they are
a-changing, my friend.
Do you like banging your head against a wall? Why don't you agree to
disagree and shut up?

"innocent bystander" <sp...@someoneelse.com> wrote in message

news:ai0lju$105uce$1...@ID-130061.news.dfncis.de...

[mattic]

My apologies for the double-post, our Newsserver does that sometimes.

"mattic" <th...@wontwork.com> wrote in message

news:Q8R09.506929$o66.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...