JP Roberts wrote:
> > Not your's, unfortunately.
> >
> > Here ya go:
> >
> > http://www.snapfiles.com/get/oequotefix.html
> >
>
> Never to be underestimated, but are you completely certain this is
going to
> meet all of your exacting demands?

Hmm, you seemed to throw up your hands in defeat at not having the
software do *all* of your thinking for you, and I help out by supplying
you with something to help out.

Uneducated rudeness is easily excused. Purposeful rudeness (along with
purposeful ignorance) has no excuse.

Your sarcasm is noted - it is lucky for both of us that I have not
actually demanded anything. Lord help *anyone* who expresses an
opinion in usenet, huh?

Again, you're welcome, and BTW, thank you for your proper quoting and
posting. I actually *do* appreciate readable posts.

E.P.

 

JP Roberts wrote:
> > Not your's, unfortunately.
> >
> > Here ya go:
> >
> > http://www.snapfiles.com/get/oequotefix.html
> >
>
> Never to be underestimated, but are you completely certain this is
going to
> meet all of your exacting demands?

Hmm, you seemed to throw up your hands in defeat at not having the
software do *all* of your thinking for you, and I help out by supplying
you with something to help out.

Uneducated rudeness is easily excused. Purposeful rudeness (along with
purposeful ignorance) has no excuse.

Your sarcasm is noted - it is lucky for both of us that I have not
actually demanded anything. Lord help *anyone* who expresses an
opinion in usenet, huh?

Again, you're welcome, and BTW, thank you for your proper quoting and
posting. I actually *do* appreciate readable posts.

E.P.

 

> Hmm, you seemed to throw up your hands in defeat at not having the
> software do *all* of your thinking for you, and I help out by supplying
> you with something to help out.

Didn't know you were the one who were actually "supplying" this! Funny that
you can still find the time to write any software at all, since you seem to
be totally devoted to Netiquette.

> Uneducated rudeness is easily excused. Purposeful rudeness (along with
> purposeful ignorance) has no excuse.

This suits you very well, since you were the one who purposefully diverted
from my original post without caring to start a new thread. Were you trying
to avoid some of the "thinking" you referred to in the first paragraph?

> Your sarcasm is noted.

Sarcasm is always good whenever it's not bitter.


> Again, you're welcome, and BTW, thank you for your proper quoting and
> posting. I actually *do* appreciate readable posts.
>
> E.P.
>

Notice that one of the possible advantages of top-posting is that if you
post in reply to any given paragraph and you make a mistake, the whole post
may be rendered unreadable. Another advantage is time saving, especially
when the posting is very short and therefore the thread easy to follow.

End of thread as regards me.

 

> Hmm, you seemed to throw up your hands in defeat at not having the
> software do *all* of your thinking for you, and I help out by supplying
> you with something to help out.

Didn't know you were the one who were actually "supplying" this! Funny that
you can still find the time to write any software at all, since you seem to
be totally devoted to Netiquette.

> Uneducated rudeness is easily excused. Purposeful rudeness (along with
> purposeful ignorance) has no excuse.

This suits you very well, since you were the one who purposefully diverted
from my original post without caring to start a new thread. Were you trying
to avoid some of the "thinking" you referred to in the first paragraph?

> Your sarcasm is noted.

Sarcasm is always good whenever it's not bitter.


> Again, you're welcome, and BTW, thank you for your proper quoting and
> posting. I actually *do* appreciate readable posts.
>
> E.P.
>

Notice that one of the possible advantages of top-posting is that if you
post in reply to any given paragraph and you make a mistake, the whole post
may be rendered unreadable. Another advantage is time saving, especially
when the posting is very short and therefore the thread easy to follow.

End of thread as regards me.

 

> Hmm, you seemed to throw up your hands in defeat at not having the
> software do *all* of your thinking for you, and I help out by supplying
> you with something to help out.

Didn't know you were the one who were actually "supplying" this! Funny that
you can still find the time to write any software at all, since you seem to
be totally devoted to Netiquette.

> Uneducated rudeness is easily excused. Purposeful rudeness (along with
> purposeful ignorance) has no excuse.

This suits you very well, since you were the one who purposefully diverted
from my original post without caring to start a new thread. Were you trying
to avoid some of the "thinking" you referred to in the first paragraph?

> Your sarcasm is noted.

Sarcasm is always good whenever it's not bitter.


> Again, you're welcome, and BTW, thank you for your proper quoting and
> posting. I actually *do* appreciate readable posts.
>
> E.P.
>

Notice that one of the possible advantages of top-posting is that if you
post in reply to any given paragraph and you make a mistake, the whole post
may be rendered unreadable. Another advantage is time saving, especially
when the posting is very short and therefore the thread easy to follow.

End of thread as regards me.

 

You're arguing with someone who will nitpick you into the mud. And once
there, easily wear you out because it is familiar territory. Like a
child always needing to get the last word in. I have concluded that for
some, slavish devotion to top posting is a measure of status in their
mind as they are the purists of usenet users. It is a geekdoom honour
thing. (notice I said "some")

Notice I said, "wear you down" not 'win'. And he will wear you down. By
the geekdoom code, that means he won.

I am amused that we all got suckered into this. It really is funny.

Something I am different about, when writing single digits, in a
sentence, I always use the word (five) rather than the numeral (5). Not
always, such as if referencing some sort of result. A long time ago I
was taught it was proper form. The other way was lazy! This is the first
time I have ever mentioned it to anybody. And I do it not to lecture but
to point out how we carry our preset preferences around with us.

Good luck if you want to pursue this. Get into the spirit of it all and
wear a StarTrek uniform or something?

I am walking away feeling I have a renewed sense of humour.

Oh, and Higgybaby, he still hasn't figured it out every time he drives
the red car, something bad happens to him. He is just like all of us!

Peace to all.





JP Roberts wrote:

>>Hmm, you seemed to throw up your hands in defeat at not having the
>>software do *all* of your thinking for you, and I help out by supplying
>>you with something to help out.
>
>
> Didn't know you were the one who were actually "supplying" this! Funny that
> you can still find the time to write any software at all, since you seem to
> be totally devoted to Netiquette.
>
>
>>Uneducated rudeness is easily excused. Purposeful rudeness (along with
>>purposeful ignorance) has no excuse.
>
>
> This suits you very well, since you were the one who purposefully diverted
> from my original post without caring to start a new thread. Were you trying
> to avoid some of the "thinking" you referred to in the first paragraph?
>
>
>>Your sarcasm is noted.
>
>
> Sarcasm is always good whenever it's not bitter.
>
>
>
>>Again, you're welcome, and BTW, thank you for your proper quoting and
>>posting. I actually *do* appreciate readable posts.
>>
>>E.P.
>>
>
>
> Notice that one of the possible advantages of top-posting is that if you
> post in reply to any given paragraph and you make a mistake, the whole post
> may be rendered unreadable. Another advantage is time saving, especially
> when the posting is very short and therefore the thread easy to follow.
>
> End of thread as regards me.
>
>

 

You're arguing with someone who will nitpick you into the mud. And once
there, easily wear you out because it is familiar territory. Like a
child always needing to get the last word in. I have concluded that for
some, slavish devotion to top posting is a measure of status in their
mind as they are the purists of usenet users. It is a geekdoom honour
thing. (notice I said "some")

Notice I said, "wear you down" not 'win'. And he will wear you down. By
the geekdoom code, that means he won.

I am amused that we all got suckered into this. It really is funny.

Something I am different about, when writing single digits, in a
sentence, I always use the word (five) rather than the numeral (5). Not
always, such as if referencing some sort of result. A long time ago I
was taught it was proper form. The other way was lazy! This is the first
time I have ever mentioned it to anybody. And I do it not to lecture but
to point out how we carry our preset preferences around with us.

Good luck if you want to pursue this. Get into the spirit of it all and
wear a StarTrek uniform or something?

I am walking away feeling I have a renewed sense of humour.

Oh, and Higgybaby, he still hasn't figured it out every time he drives
the red car, something bad happens to him. He is just like all of us!

Peace to all.





JP Roberts wrote:

>>Hmm, you seemed to throw up your hands in defeat at not having the
>>software do *all* of your thinking for you, and I help out by supplying
>>you with something to help out.
>
>
> Didn't know you were the one who were actually "supplying" this! Funny that
> you can still find the time to write any software at all, since you seem to
> be totally devoted to Netiquette.
>
>
>>Uneducated rudeness is easily excused. Purposeful rudeness (along with
>>purposeful ignorance) has no excuse.
>
>
> This suits you very well, since you were the one who purposefully diverted
> from my original post without caring to start a new thread. Were you trying
> to avoid some of the "thinking" you referred to in the first paragraph?
>
>
>>Your sarcasm is noted.
>
>
> Sarcasm is always good whenever it's not bitter.
>
>
>
>>Again, you're welcome, and BTW, thank you for your proper quoting and
>>posting. I actually *do* appreciate readable posts.
>>
>>E.P.
>>
>
>
> Notice that one of the possible advantages of top-posting is that if you
> post in reply to any given paragraph and you make a mistake, the whole post
> may be rendered unreadable. Another advantage is time saving, especially
> when the posting is very short and therefore the thread easy to follow.
>
> End of thread as regards me.
>
>

 

You're arguing with someone who will nitpick you into the mud. And once
there, easily wear you out because it is familiar territory. Like a
child always needing to get the last word in. I have concluded that for
some, slavish devotion to top posting is a measure of status in their
mind as they are the purists of usenet users. It is a geekdoom honour
thing. (notice I said "some")

Notice I said, "wear you down" not 'win'. And he will wear you down. By
the geekdoom code, that means he won.

I am amused that we all got suckered into this. It really is funny.

Something I am different about, when writing single digits, in a
sentence, I always use the word (five) rather than the numeral (5). Not
always, such as if referencing some sort of result. A long time ago I
was taught it was proper form. The other way was lazy! This is the first
time I have ever mentioned it to anybody. And I do it not to lecture but
to point out how we carry our preset preferences around with us.

Good luck if you want to pursue this. Get into the spirit of it all and
wear a StarTrek uniform or something?

I am walking away feeling I have a renewed sense of humour.

Oh, and Higgybaby, he still hasn't figured it out every time he drives
the red car, something bad happens to him. He is just like all of us!

Peace to all.





JP Roberts wrote:

>>Hmm, you seemed to throw up your hands in defeat at not having the
>>software do *all* of your thinking for you, and I help out by supplying
>>you with something to help out.
>
>
> Didn't know you were the one who were actually "supplying" this! Funny that
> you can still find the time to write any software at all, since you seem to
> be totally devoted to Netiquette.
>
>
>>Uneducated rudeness is easily excused. Purposeful rudeness (along with
>>purposeful ignorance) has no excuse.
>
>
> This suits you very well, since you were the one who purposefully diverted
> from my original post without caring to start a new thread. Were you trying
> to avoid some of the "thinking" you referred to in the first paragraph?
>
>
>>Your sarcasm is noted.
>
>
> Sarcasm is always good whenever it's not bitter.
>
>
>
>>Again, you're welcome, and BTW, thank you for your proper quoting and
>>posting. I actually *do* appreciate readable posts.
>>
>>E.P.
>>
>
>
> Notice that one of the possible advantages of top-posting is that if you
> post in reply to any given paragraph and you make a mistake, the whole post
> may be rendered unreadable. Another advantage is time saving, especially
> when the posting is very short and therefore the thread easy to follow.
>
> End of thread as regards me.
>
>

 

JP Roberts wrote:
> > Hmm, you seemed to throw up your hands in defeat at not having the
> > software do *all* of your thinking for you, and I help out by
supplying
> > you with something to help out.
>
> Didn't know you were the one who were actually "supplying" this!

Did I not search out the link to give to you? What could possibly give
you the silly idea that *I* wrote it - I have not even implied such a
thing.

> > Uneducated rudeness is easily excused. Purposeful rudeness (along
with
> > purposeful ignorance) has no excuse.
>
> This suits you very well, since you were the one who purposefully
diverted
> from my original post without caring to start a new thread.

Starting a new thread for a metadiscussion is rude in and of itself.
THere's some education - now you have no excuses there.

> > Again, you're welcome, and BTW, thank you for your proper quoting
and
> > posting. I actually *do* appreciate readable posts.
> >
>
> Notice that one of the possible advantages of top-posting is that if
you
> post in reply to any given paragraph and you make a mistake, the
whole post
> may be rendered unreadable

As opposed to posting a reply so far removed from the being replied to?
Uh, no.

> Another advantage is time saving, especially
> when the posting is very short and therefore the thread easy to
follow.

Yes, classic MFFY. "If it's good for me, great! If it's rude, who
cares - it's good for me!"

Your "time savings" then becomes a time cost for someone else unless
EVERYBODY posts the same way. And they don't, so there's only time
savings for *you*.

Add "selfish" to lazy and rude.

E.P.

 

JP Roberts wrote:
> > Hmm, you seemed to throw up your hands in defeat at not having the
> > software do *all* of your thinking for you, and I help out by
supplying
> > you with something to help out.
>
> Didn't know you were the one who were actually "supplying" this!

Did I not search out the link to give to you? What could possibly give
you the silly idea that *I* wrote it - I have not even implied such a
thing.

> > Uneducated rudeness is easily excused. Purposeful rudeness (along
with
> > purposeful ignorance) has no excuse.
>
> This suits you very well, since you were the one who purposefully
diverted
> from my original post without caring to start a new thread.

Starting a new thread for a metadiscussion is rude in and of itself.
THere's some education - now you have no excuses there.

> > Again, you're welcome, and BTW, thank you for your proper quoting
and
> > posting. I actually *do* appreciate readable posts.
> >
>
> Notice that one of the possible advantages of top-posting is that if
you
> post in reply to any given paragraph and you make a mistake, the
whole post
> may be rendered unreadable

As opposed to posting a reply so far removed from the being replied to?
Uh, no.

> Another advantage is time saving, especially
> when the posting is very short and therefore the thread easy to
follow.

Yes, classic MFFY. "If it's good for me, great! If it's rude, who
cares - it's good for me!"

Your "time savings" then becomes a time cost for someone else unless
EVERYBODY posts the same way. And they don't, so there's only time
savings for *you*.

Add "selfish" to lazy and rude.

E.P.