GUESS WHAT?
#51
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GUESS WHAT?
On 7 Apr 2005 11:20:15 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>
>JP Roberts wrote:
>> > You complaining about anyone else's posting is funny.
>> >
>> > E.P.
>> >
>>
>> It's the contents that matter to me, my friend.
>
>There is a saying: "It's not what you say, it's how you say it."
Do you have a problem with people in real life who have different
accents to you? Do you ask them to speak in your accent?
>Thus, the form of your communication matters just as much, if not more,
>than it's contents.
Then you'll be gutted to have used the wrong form of "it's" then?
>Top-posting is rude and lazy. I realize that a lot of newsreaders do
>it by default, but that doesn't make it right.
>
>> Layouts are for marketeers.
>
>If you believe this has anything to do with something other than
>courtesy and etiquette, then you miss the point entirely.
Courtesy is accepting other people's preferences and not whining at
them about it.
>Proper quoting and trimming eliminate every advantage claimed by
>top-posters.
Top-posting ensures that attributions remain correct in multi-level
quotes. See above where it says "gcmchemist@gmail.com wrote",
whereupon what is quoted directly below is *not* what you wrote, it's
what someone else wrote. What you actually wrote appears many lines
further down. Top-posting eliminates this problem and therefore
renders your above claim to be untrue.
> In addition, it makes posts easier to read
Only to those who prefer that style. People who prefer top-posting
find top-posting easier to read.
> make sense on a stand-alone basis
Top posts generally do not require context, but quote for reference.
Note how the one which you are whining about makes a comment about the
entire post and then quotes it for reference.
> and eliminates usenet meta-discussions.
You started this one. Learn to accept more than one style of post and
don't be so lazy.
andyt
>
>JP Roberts wrote:
>> > You complaining about anyone else's posting is funny.
>> >
>> > E.P.
>> >
>>
>> It's the contents that matter to me, my friend.
>
>There is a saying: "It's not what you say, it's how you say it."
Do you have a problem with people in real life who have different
accents to you? Do you ask them to speak in your accent?
>Thus, the form of your communication matters just as much, if not more,
>than it's contents.
Then you'll be gutted to have used the wrong form of "it's" then?
>Top-posting is rude and lazy. I realize that a lot of newsreaders do
>it by default, but that doesn't make it right.
>
>> Layouts are for marketeers.
>
>If you believe this has anything to do with something other than
>courtesy and etiquette, then you miss the point entirely.
Courtesy is accepting other people's preferences and not whining at
them about it.
>Proper quoting and trimming eliminate every advantage claimed by
>top-posters.
Top-posting ensures that attributions remain correct in multi-level
quotes. See above where it says "gcmchemist@gmail.com wrote",
whereupon what is quoted directly below is *not* what you wrote, it's
what someone else wrote. What you actually wrote appears many lines
further down. Top-posting eliminates this problem and therefore
renders your above claim to be untrue.
> In addition, it makes posts easier to read
Only to those who prefer that style. People who prefer top-posting
find top-posting easier to read.
> make sense on a stand-alone basis
Top posts generally do not require context, but quote for reference.
Note how the one which you are whining about makes a comment about the
entire post and then quotes it for reference.
> and eliminates usenet meta-discussions.
You started this one. Learn to accept more than one style of post and
don't be so lazy.
andyt
#52
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GUESS WHAT?
On 7 Apr 2005 11:20:15 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>
>JP Roberts wrote:
>> > You complaining about anyone else's posting is funny.
>> >
>> > E.P.
>> >
>>
>> It's the contents that matter to me, my friend.
>
>There is a saying: "It's not what you say, it's how you say it."
Do you have a problem with people in real life who have different
accents to you? Do you ask them to speak in your accent?
>Thus, the form of your communication matters just as much, if not more,
>than it's contents.
Then you'll be gutted to have used the wrong form of "it's" then?
>Top-posting is rude and lazy. I realize that a lot of newsreaders do
>it by default, but that doesn't make it right.
>
>> Layouts are for marketeers.
>
>If you believe this has anything to do with something other than
>courtesy and etiquette, then you miss the point entirely.
Courtesy is accepting other people's preferences and not whining at
them about it.
>Proper quoting and trimming eliminate every advantage claimed by
>top-posters.
Top-posting ensures that attributions remain correct in multi-level
quotes. See above where it says "gcmchemist@gmail.com wrote",
whereupon what is quoted directly below is *not* what you wrote, it's
what someone else wrote. What you actually wrote appears many lines
further down. Top-posting eliminates this problem and therefore
renders your above claim to be untrue.
> In addition, it makes posts easier to read
Only to those who prefer that style. People who prefer top-posting
find top-posting easier to read.
> make sense on a stand-alone basis
Top posts generally do not require context, but quote for reference.
Note how the one which you are whining about makes a comment about the
entire post and then quotes it for reference.
> and eliminates usenet meta-discussions.
You started this one. Learn to accept more than one style of post and
don't be so lazy.
andyt
>
>JP Roberts wrote:
>> > You complaining about anyone else's posting is funny.
>> >
>> > E.P.
>> >
>>
>> It's the contents that matter to me, my friend.
>
>There is a saying: "It's not what you say, it's how you say it."
Do you have a problem with people in real life who have different
accents to you? Do you ask them to speak in your accent?
>Thus, the form of your communication matters just as much, if not more,
>than it's contents.
Then you'll be gutted to have used the wrong form of "it's" then?
>Top-posting is rude and lazy. I realize that a lot of newsreaders do
>it by default, but that doesn't make it right.
>
>> Layouts are for marketeers.
>
>If you believe this has anything to do with something other than
>courtesy and etiquette, then you miss the point entirely.
Courtesy is accepting other people's preferences and not whining at
them about it.
>Proper quoting and trimming eliminate every advantage claimed by
>top-posters.
Top-posting ensures that attributions remain correct in multi-level
quotes. See above where it says "gcmchemist@gmail.com wrote",
whereupon what is quoted directly below is *not* what you wrote, it's
what someone else wrote. What you actually wrote appears many lines
further down. Top-posting eliminates this problem and therefore
renders your above claim to be untrue.
> In addition, it makes posts easier to read
Only to those who prefer that style. People who prefer top-posting
find top-posting easier to read.
> make sense on a stand-alone basis
Top posts generally do not require context, but quote for reference.
Note how the one which you are whining about makes a comment about the
entire post and then quotes it for reference.
> and eliminates usenet meta-discussions.
You started this one. Learn to accept more than one style of post and
don't be so lazy.
andyt
#53
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ot
Andy Turner wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2005 14:37:26 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>Jules wrote:
>>
>>>gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Top-posting is rude and lazy.
>>>
>>>No it isn't. The problem is your perception.
>>>Those days are long gone. But then I have a life.
>>
>>And you waste it by writing in usenet? Wow.
>>
>>Your comments are exactly the same as everyone else's who seem to find
>>some aspect of etiquette inconvenient.
>>
>>I will never be able to perceive of a time when things are read from
>>bottom to top.
>
>
> That's not what top posting is about. The quote is usually made for
> reference, not context and is therefore not required reading.
>
>
>
>>I will say it again - top-posting is rude and lazy.
>
>
> It's just a different style. What's lazy is you being unable to get
> used to reading more than one style.
>
>
>
> andyt
>
Where can I get a copy of newsgroup etiquette. What is top-posting? Rude
and Lazy? Or do you get arrogant by driving Audis. These posts make me
want dump my Audi and go back to MB. At least they don't damn you for
not being a pro poster.
> On 7 Apr 2005 14:37:26 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>Jules wrote:
>>
>>>gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Top-posting is rude and lazy.
>>>
>>>No it isn't. The problem is your perception.
>>>Those days are long gone. But then I have a life.
>>
>>And you waste it by writing in usenet? Wow.
>>
>>Your comments are exactly the same as everyone else's who seem to find
>>some aspect of etiquette inconvenient.
>>
>>I will never be able to perceive of a time when things are read from
>>bottom to top.
>
>
> That's not what top posting is about. The quote is usually made for
> reference, not context and is therefore not required reading.
>
>
>
>>I will say it again - top-posting is rude and lazy.
>
>
> It's just a different style. What's lazy is you being unable to get
> used to reading more than one style.
>
>
>
> andyt
>
Where can I get a copy of newsgroup etiquette. What is top-posting? Rude
and Lazy? Or do you get arrogant by driving Audis. These posts make me
want dump my Audi and go back to MB. At least they don't damn you for
not being a pro poster.
#54
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ot
Andy Turner wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2005 14:37:26 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>Jules wrote:
>>
>>>gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Top-posting is rude and lazy.
>>>
>>>No it isn't. The problem is your perception.
>>>Those days are long gone. But then I have a life.
>>
>>And you waste it by writing in usenet? Wow.
>>
>>Your comments are exactly the same as everyone else's who seem to find
>>some aspect of etiquette inconvenient.
>>
>>I will never be able to perceive of a time when things are read from
>>bottom to top.
>
>
> That's not what top posting is about. The quote is usually made for
> reference, not context and is therefore not required reading.
>
>
>
>>I will say it again - top-posting is rude and lazy.
>
>
> It's just a different style. What's lazy is you being unable to get
> used to reading more than one style.
>
>
>
> andyt
>
Where can I get a copy of newsgroup etiquette. What is top-posting? Rude
and Lazy? Or do you get arrogant by driving Audis. These posts make me
want dump my Audi and go back to MB. At least they don't damn you for
not being a pro poster.
> On 7 Apr 2005 14:37:26 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>Jules wrote:
>>
>>>gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Top-posting is rude and lazy.
>>>
>>>No it isn't. The problem is your perception.
>>>Those days are long gone. But then I have a life.
>>
>>And you waste it by writing in usenet? Wow.
>>
>>Your comments are exactly the same as everyone else's who seem to find
>>some aspect of etiquette inconvenient.
>>
>>I will never be able to perceive of a time when things are read from
>>bottom to top.
>
>
> That's not what top posting is about. The quote is usually made for
> reference, not context and is therefore not required reading.
>
>
>
>>I will say it again - top-posting is rude and lazy.
>
>
> It's just a different style. What's lazy is you being unable to get
> used to reading more than one style.
>
>
>
> andyt
>
Where can I get a copy of newsgroup etiquette. What is top-posting? Rude
and Lazy? Or do you get arrogant by driving Audis. These posts make me
want dump my Audi and go back to MB. At least they don't damn you for
not being a pro poster.
#55
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ot
Andy Turner wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2005 14:37:26 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>Jules wrote:
>>
>>>gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Top-posting is rude and lazy.
>>>
>>>No it isn't. The problem is your perception.
>>>Those days are long gone. But then I have a life.
>>
>>And you waste it by writing in usenet? Wow.
>>
>>Your comments are exactly the same as everyone else's who seem to find
>>some aspect of etiquette inconvenient.
>>
>>I will never be able to perceive of a time when things are read from
>>bottom to top.
>
>
> That's not what top posting is about. The quote is usually made for
> reference, not context and is therefore not required reading.
>
>
>
>>I will say it again - top-posting is rude and lazy.
>
>
> It's just a different style. What's lazy is you being unable to get
> used to reading more than one style.
>
>
>
> andyt
>
Where can I get a copy of newsgroup etiquette. What is top-posting? Rude
and Lazy? Or do you get arrogant by driving Audis. These posts make me
want dump my Audi and go back to MB. At least they don't damn you for
not being a pro poster.
> On 7 Apr 2005 14:37:26 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>Jules wrote:
>>
>>>gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Top-posting is rude and lazy.
>>>
>>>No it isn't. The problem is your perception.
>>>Those days are long gone. But then I have a life.
>>
>>And you waste it by writing in usenet? Wow.
>>
>>Your comments are exactly the same as everyone else's who seem to find
>>some aspect of etiquette inconvenient.
>>
>>I will never be able to perceive of a time when things are read from
>>bottom to top.
>
>
> That's not what top posting is about. The quote is usually made for
> reference, not context and is therefore not required reading.
>
>
>
>>I will say it again - top-posting is rude and lazy.
>
>
> It's just a different style. What's lazy is you being unable to get
> used to reading more than one style.
>
>
>
> andyt
>
Where can I get a copy of newsgroup etiquette. What is top-posting? Rude
and Lazy? Or do you get arrogant by driving Audis. These posts make me
want dump my Audi and go back to MB. At least they don't damn you for
not being a pro poster.
#56
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ot
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 22:58:26 GMT, Dennis W <wyattdNOSPAM@gvsu.edu> wrote:
>Andy Turner wrote:
>> On 7 Apr 2005 14:37:26 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jules wrote:
>>>
>>>>gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Top-posting is rude and lazy.
>>>>
>>>>No it isn't. The problem is your perception.
>>>>Those days are long gone. But then I have a life.
>>>
>>>And you waste it by writing in usenet? Wow.
>>>
>>>Your comments are exactly the same as everyone else's who seem to find
>>>some aspect of etiquette inconvenient.
>>>
>>>I will never be able to perceive of a time when things are read from
>>>bottom to top.
>>
>>
>> That's not what top posting is about. The quote is usually made for
>> reference, not context and is therefore not required reading.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I will say it again - top-posting is rude and lazy.
>>
>>
>> It's just a different style. What's lazy is you being unable to get
>> used to reading more than one style.
>>
>>
>>
>> andyt
>>
>Where can I get a copy of newsgroup etiquette. What is top-posting? Rude
>and Lazy? Or do you get arrogant by driving Audis. These posts make me
>want dump my Audi and go back to MB. At least they don't damn you for
>not being a pro poster.
They must be very accepting of nitwits.
>Andy Turner wrote:
>> On 7 Apr 2005 14:37:26 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jules wrote:
>>>
>>>>gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Top-posting is rude and lazy.
>>>>
>>>>No it isn't. The problem is your perception.
>>>>Those days are long gone. But then I have a life.
>>>
>>>And you waste it by writing in usenet? Wow.
>>>
>>>Your comments are exactly the same as everyone else's who seem to find
>>>some aspect of etiquette inconvenient.
>>>
>>>I will never be able to perceive of a time when things are read from
>>>bottom to top.
>>
>>
>> That's not what top posting is about. The quote is usually made for
>> reference, not context and is therefore not required reading.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I will say it again - top-posting is rude and lazy.
>>
>>
>> It's just a different style. What's lazy is you being unable to get
>> used to reading more than one style.
>>
>>
>>
>> andyt
>>
>Where can I get a copy of newsgroup etiquette. What is top-posting? Rude
>and Lazy? Or do you get arrogant by driving Audis. These posts make me
>want dump my Audi and go back to MB. At least they don't damn you for
>not being a pro poster.
They must be very accepting of nitwits.
#57
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ot
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 22:58:26 GMT, Dennis W <wyattdNOSPAM@gvsu.edu> wrote:
>Andy Turner wrote:
>> On 7 Apr 2005 14:37:26 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jules wrote:
>>>
>>>>gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Top-posting is rude and lazy.
>>>>
>>>>No it isn't. The problem is your perception.
>>>>Those days are long gone. But then I have a life.
>>>
>>>And you waste it by writing in usenet? Wow.
>>>
>>>Your comments are exactly the same as everyone else's who seem to find
>>>some aspect of etiquette inconvenient.
>>>
>>>I will never be able to perceive of a time when things are read from
>>>bottom to top.
>>
>>
>> That's not what top posting is about. The quote is usually made for
>> reference, not context and is therefore not required reading.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I will say it again - top-posting is rude and lazy.
>>
>>
>> It's just a different style. What's lazy is you being unable to get
>> used to reading more than one style.
>>
>>
>>
>> andyt
>>
>Where can I get a copy of newsgroup etiquette. What is top-posting? Rude
>and Lazy? Or do you get arrogant by driving Audis. These posts make me
>want dump my Audi and go back to MB. At least they don't damn you for
>not being a pro poster.
They must be very accepting of nitwits.
>Andy Turner wrote:
>> On 7 Apr 2005 14:37:26 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jules wrote:
>>>
>>>>gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Top-posting is rude and lazy.
>>>>
>>>>No it isn't. The problem is your perception.
>>>>Those days are long gone. But then I have a life.
>>>
>>>And you waste it by writing in usenet? Wow.
>>>
>>>Your comments are exactly the same as everyone else's who seem to find
>>>some aspect of etiquette inconvenient.
>>>
>>>I will never be able to perceive of a time when things are read from
>>>bottom to top.
>>
>>
>> That's not what top posting is about. The quote is usually made for
>> reference, not context and is therefore not required reading.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I will say it again - top-posting is rude and lazy.
>>
>>
>> It's just a different style. What's lazy is you being unable to get
>> used to reading more than one style.
>>
>>
>>
>> andyt
>>
>Where can I get a copy of newsgroup etiquette. What is top-posting? Rude
>and Lazy? Or do you get arrogant by driving Audis. These posts make me
>want dump my Audi and go back to MB. At least they don't damn you for
>not being a pro poster.
They must be very accepting of nitwits.
#58
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ot
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 22:58:26 GMT, Dennis W <wyattdNOSPAM@gvsu.edu> wrote:
>Andy Turner wrote:
>> On 7 Apr 2005 14:37:26 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jules wrote:
>>>
>>>>gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Top-posting is rude and lazy.
>>>>
>>>>No it isn't. The problem is your perception.
>>>>Those days are long gone. But then I have a life.
>>>
>>>And you waste it by writing in usenet? Wow.
>>>
>>>Your comments are exactly the same as everyone else's who seem to find
>>>some aspect of etiquette inconvenient.
>>>
>>>I will never be able to perceive of a time when things are read from
>>>bottom to top.
>>
>>
>> That's not what top posting is about. The quote is usually made for
>> reference, not context and is therefore not required reading.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I will say it again - top-posting is rude and lazy.
>>
>>
>> It's just a different style. What's lazy is you being unable to get
>> used to reading more than one style.
>>
>>
>>
>> andyt
>>
>Where can I get a copy of newsgroup etiquette. What is top-posting? Rude
>and Lazy? Or do you get arrogant by driving Audis. These posts make me
>want dump my Audi and go back to MB. At least they don't damn you for
>not being a pro poster.
They must be very accepting of nitwits.
>Andy Turner wrote:
>> On 7 Apr 2005 14:37:26 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jules wrote:
>>>
>>>>gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Top-posting is rude and lazy.
>>>>
>>>>No it isn't. The problem is your perception.
>>>>Those days are long gone. But then I have a life.
>>>
>>>And you waste it by writing in usenet? Wow.
>>>
>>>Your comments are exactly the same as everyone else's who seem to find
>>>some aspect of etiquette inconvenient.
>>>
>>>I will never be able to perceive of a time when things are read from
>>>bottom to top.
>>
>>
>> That's not what top posting is about. The quote is usually made for
>> reference, not context and is therefore not required reading.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I will say it again - top-posting is rude and lazy.
>>
>>
>> It's just a different style. What's lazy is you being unable to get
>> used to reading more than one style.
>>
>>
>>
>> andyt
>>
>Where can I get a copy of newsgroup etiquette. What is top-posting? Rude
>and Lazy? Or do you get arrogant by driving Audis. These posts make me
>want dump my Audi and go back to MB. At least they don't damn you for
>not being a pro poster.
They must be very accepting of nitwits.
#59
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GUESS WHAT?
Andy Turner wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2005 11:20:15 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >JP Roberts wrote:
> >> > You complaining about anyone else's posting is funny.
> >> >
> >> > E.P.
> >> >
> >>
> >> It's the contents that matter to me, my friend.
> >
> >There is a saying: "It's not what you say, it's how you say it."
>
> Do you have a problem with people in real life who have different
> accents to you? Do you ask them to speak in your accent?
[snip]
Since you have replied to each of my points *below* what I had written,
you proved my point quite nicely.
Thanks.
E.P.
#60
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GUESS WHAT?
Andy Turner wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2005 11:20:15 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >JP Roberts wrote:
> >> > You complaining about anyone else's posting is funny.
> >> >
> >> > E.P.
> >> >
> >>
> >> It's the contents that matter to me, my friend.
> >
> >There is a saying: "It's not what you say, it's how you say it."
>
> Do you have a problem with people in real life who have different
> accents to you? Do you ask them to speak in your accent?
[snip]
Since you have replied to each of my points *below* what I had written,
you proved my point quite nicely.
Thanks.
E.P.