GUESS WHAT?
#121
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GUESS WHAT?
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.
#122
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GUESS WHAT?
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 bottom 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.
>
>
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 bottom 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.
>
>
#123
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GUESS WHAT?
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 bottom 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.
>
>
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 bottom 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.
>
>
#124
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GUESS WHAT?
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 bottom 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.
>
>
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 bottom 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.
>
>
#125
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GUESS WHAT?
Your insults only add to your status.
<gcmschemist@gmail.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:1113226401.741930.203890@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>
> 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.
>
<gcmschemist@gmail.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:1113226401.741930.203890@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>
> 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.
>
#126
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GUESS WHAT?
Your insults only add to your status.
<gcmschemist@gmail.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:1113226401.741930.203890@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>
> 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.
>
<gcmschemist@gmail.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:1113226401.741930.203890@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>
> 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.
>
#127
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GUESS WHAT?
Your insults only add to your status.
<gcmschemist@gmail.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:1113226401.741930.203890@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>
> 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.
>
<gcmschemist@gmail.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:1113226401.741930.203890@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>
> 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.
>
#128
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GUESS WHAT?
Jules sniped from cover:
> Like a
> child always needing to get the last word in.
You revel in irony, don't you?
> Notice I said, "wear you down" not 'win'. And he will wear you down.
By
> the geekdoom code, that means he won.
No, Jules, I "won" before I ever posted a single word on the subject.
That you feel the need to use ad hominem comments to try and salve your
bruised ego is telling.
You see, the standards for proper posting existed before you or I ever
posted a single word in usenet. I realize that this inconvenient fact
hurts you deeply, and I can't apologize for pointing it out - facts are
facts, and they don't bow to feelings.
Etiquette in all things existed before you and I first recognized the
need to follow etiquette. Like proper queue behavior, table manners,
courteous driving, etc. Or are you one of those folks who truly
doesn't follow accepted standards of behavior? If that is the case,
then this is all moot. It would imply that you are an by
choice, and no amount of education will do anything to make you polite
enough for adults.
> I am amused that we all got suckered into this. It really is funny.
What hilarious is that *you* keep going on, and on, and on - as though
somehow your own comments about others don't apply to yourself.
> And I do it not to lecture but
> to point out how we carry our preset preferences around with us.
How is it rude to write "5" rather than "five"? It isn't? OK, then.
But pointing out poor grammer or speling *is* rude.
> I am walking away feeling I have a renewed sense of humour.
If that were only true. But it isn't. You are hurt because your
shortcomings have been pointed out in public, and you are pouting about
it. The facade of nonchalance is easily seen. What's worse, in the
face of evidence to the contrary that top-posting is acceptable, you
still seem to cling to your false ideas, because you know that you will
lose face if you suddenly started doing it the right way. Down deep,
you have that sinking feeling because you know I'm right, and you hate
it. That is why you feel the need to attack me personally, rather than
attempt an air-tight logical construct to prove your own point.
Oh, and hey - after a while of have a rude, lazy and selfish posting
style, folks will just killfile you or ignore your posts. Thus making
usenet sort of pointless for you. Good luck with that.
E.P. (Ignoring Jules' posts henceforth)
#129
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GUESS WHAT?
Jules sniped from cover:
> Like a
> child always needing to get the last word in.
You revel in irony, don't you?
> Notice I said, "wear you down" not 'win'. And he will wear you down.
By
> the geekdoom code, that means he won.
No, Jules, I "won" before I ever posted a single word on the subject.
That you feel the need to use ad hominem comments to try and salve your
bruised ego is telling.
You see, the standards for proper posting existed before you or I ever
posted a single word in usenet. I realize that this inconvenient fact
hurts you deeply, and I can't apologize for pointing it out - facts are
facts, and they don't bow to feelings.
Etiquette in all things existed before you and I first recognized the
need to follow etiquette. Like proper queue behavior, table manners,
courteous driving, etc. Or are you one of those folks who truly
doesn't follow accepted standards of behavior? If that is the case,
then this is all moot. It would imply that you are an by
choice, and no amount of education will do anything to make you polite
enough for adults.
> I am amused that we all got suckered into this. It really is funny.
What hilarious is that *you* keep going on, and on, and on - as though
somehow your own comments about others don't apply to yourself.
> And I do it not to lecture but
> to point out how we carry our preset preferences around with us.
How is it rude to write "5" rather than "five"? It isn't? OK, then.
But pointing out poor grammer or speling *is* rude.
> I am walking away feeling I have a renewed sense of humour.
If that were only true. But it isn't. You are hurt because your
shortcomings have been pointed out in public, and you are pouting about
it. The facade of nonchalance is easily seen. What's worse, in the
face of evidence to the contrary that top-posting is acceptable, you
still seem to cling to your false ideas, because you know that you will
lose face if you suddenly started doing it the right way. Down deep,
you have that sinking feeling because you know I'm right, and you hate
it. That is why you feel the need to attack me personally, rather than
attempt an air-tight logical construct to prove your own point.
Oh, and hey - after a while of have a rude, lazy and selfish posting
style, folks will just killfile you or ignore your posts. Thus making
usenet sort of pointless for you. Good luck with that.
E.P. (Ignoring Jules' posts henceforth)
#130
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GUESS WHAT?
Jules sniped from cover:
> Like a
> child always needing to get the last word in.
You revel in irony, don't you?
> Notice I said, "wear you down" not 'win'. And he will wear you down.
By
> the geekdoom code, that means he won.
No, Jules, I "won" before I ever posted a single word on the subject.
That you feel the need to use ad hominem comments to try and salve your
bruised ego is telling.
You see, the standards for proper posting existed before you or I ever
posted a single word in usenet. I realize that this inconvenient fact
hurts you deeply, and I can't apologize for pointing it out - facts are
facts, and they don't bow to feelings.
Etiquette in all things existed before you and I first recognized the
need to follow etiquette. Like proper queue behavior, table manners,
courteous driving, etc. Or are you one of those folks who truly
doesn't follow accepted standards of behavior? If that is the case,
then this is all moot. It would imply that you are an by
choice, and no amount of education will do anything to make you polite
enough for adults.
> I am amused that we all got suckered into this. It really is funny.
What hilarious is that *you* keep going on, and on, and on - as though
somehow your own comments about others don't apply to yourself.
> And I do it not to lecture but
> to point out how we carry our preset preferences around with us.
How is it rude to write "5" rather than "five"? It isn't? OK, then.
But pointing out poor grammer or speling *is* rude.
> I am walking away feeling I have a renewed sense of humour.
If that were only true. But it isn't. You are hurt because your
shortcomings have been pointed out in public, and you are pouting about
it. The facade of nonchalance is easily seen. What's worse, in the
face of evidence to the contrary that top-posting is acceptable, you
still seem to cling to your false ideas, because you know that you will
lose face if you suddenly started doing it the right way. Down deep,
you have that sinking feeling because you know I'm right, and you hate
it. That is why you feel the need to attack me personally, rather than
attempt an air-tight logical construct to prove your own point.
Oh, and hey - after a while of have a rude, lazy and selfish posting
style, folks will just killfile you or ignore your posts. Thus making
usenet sort of pointless for you. Good luck with that.
E.P. (Ignoring Jules' posts henceforth)