"Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote:

A. Who are the biggest idiots on Usenet?

>
> A: Top-posters.
>
> Q: What's the most annoying thing about Usenet.
>
>

Q. Opening statement concerning people who set their readers for best
binaries viewing then complain about top posting in conversational groups.

--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!

 

"Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote:

A. Who are the biggest idiots on Usenet?

>
> A: Top-posters.
>
> Q: What's the most annoying thing about Usenet.
>
>

Q. Opening statement concerning people who set their readers for best
binaries viewing then complain about top posting in conversational groups.

--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!

 

In article <1143494657.583079.60380@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups. com>,
gcmschemist@gmail.com says...
> > The cursor programmatically starts off inserting the
> > new material at the top (instead of the bottom) for a reason.
>
> LOL. What reason? Because AOL did it that way. That's the only
> reason.
>

Actually, according to M$hit whose Newsreader behaves this way, it is so
you can move the cursor down through the quoted material, discarding
that material not necessary, and inserting your own material at the
relevant places.

It makes sense to me.

--
Alan LeHun

 

In article <1143494657.583079.60380@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups. com>,
gcmschemist@gmail.com says...
> > The cursor programmatically starts off inserting the
> > new material at the top (instead of the bottom) for a reason.
>
> LOL. What reason? Because AOL did it that way. That's the only
> reason.
>

Actually, according to M$hit whose Newsreader behaves this way, it is so
you can move the cursor down through the quoted material, discarding
that material not necessary, and inserting your own material at the
relevant places.

It makes sense to me.

--
Alan LeHun

 

In article <1143494657.583079.60380@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups. com>,
gcmschemist@gmail.com says...
> > The cursor programmatically starts off inserting the
> > new material at the top (instead of the bottom) for a reason.
>
> LOL. What reason? Because AOL did it that way. That's the only
> reason.
>

Actually, according to M$hit whose Newsreader behaves this way, it is so
you can move the cursor down through the quoted material, discarding
that material not necessary, and inserting your own material at the
relevant places.

It makes sense to me.

--
Alan LeHun

 

Alan LeHun wrote:
> In article <1143494657.583079.60380@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups. com>,
> gcmschemist@gmail.com says...
> > > The cursor programmatically starts off inserting the
> > > new material at the top (instead of the bottom) for a reason.
> >
> > LOL. What reason? Because AOL did it that way. That's the only
> > reason.
> >
>
> Actually, according to M$hit whose Newsreader behaves this way, it is so
> you can move the cursor down through the quoted material, discarding
> that material not necessary, and inserting your own material at the
> relevant places.
>
> It makes sense to me.

Yeah, Google Groups reply function starts the cursor at the top as well
- but then doesn't even quote the previous material, until you send.
Then it full-quotes. Sheesh.

They have thanked me for the input on their reply function, however.
ROTFL.

E.P.

 

Alan LeHun wrote:
> In article <1143494657.583079.60380@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups. com>,
> gcmschemist@gmail.com says...
> > > The cursor programmatically starts off inserting the
> > > new material at the top (instead of the bottom) for a reason.
> >
> > LOL. What reason? Because AOL did it that way. That's the only
> > reason.
> >
>
> Actually, according to M$hit whose Newsreader behaves this way, it is so
> you can move the cursor down through the quoted material, discarding
> that material not necessary, and inserting your own material at the
> relevant places.
>
> It makes sense to me.

Yeah, Google Groups reply function starts the cursor at the top as well
- but then doesn't even quote the previous material, until you send.
Then it full-quotes. Sheesh.

They have thanked me for the input on their reply function, however.
ROTFL.

E.P.

 

Alan LeHun wrote:
> In article <1143494657.583079.60380@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups. com>,
> gcmschemist@gmail.com says...
> > > The cursor programmatically starts off inserting the
> > > new material at the top (instead of the bottom) for a reason.
> >
> > LOL. What reason? Because AOL did it that way. That's the only
> > reason.
> >
>
> Actually, according to M$hit whose Newsreader behaves this way, it is so
> you can move the cursor down through the quoted material, discarding
> that material not necessary, and inserting your own material at the
> relevant places.
>
> It makes sense to me.

Yeah, Google Groups reply function starts the cursor at the top as well
- but then doesn't even quote the previous material, until you send.
Then it full-quotes. Sheesh.

They have thanked me for the input on their reply function, however.
ROTFL.

E.P.

 

You're the rude one. I appreciate peoples contributions without
getting my undies all in a twist about top/bottom/******* posting. I
hope he keeps up the good work and that you learn to stop being such
an arrogant *****.

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 09:54:42 -0500, admin <admin@192.168.0.2> wrote:

>Jim Warman wrote:
>> How long do you stare at your before you flush???
>
>Why - do you want to stare at them instead? I'm sure Dave can save some
>for you.
>
>> Welcome to the modern world.... spelling anything correctly is optional
>> (exclusive of typos)...
>
>I guess it is if you want to come off as an uneducated twit. Oh - you
>are an uneducated twit. Sorry.
>
>> grammar will never be one of my strong points (what
>> do you expect from a grade 8 drop-out).
>
>Point taken. Was it drugs or just stupidity?
>
>> I couldn't conjugate a verb or parse
>> a statement to save my life.... BUT... I do fix cars for a living.... and I
>> do offer my "wisdom" freely... I don't think that where my reply resides
>> should be a bone of contention.
>
>Simply because you THINK you have something valuable to offer us (which
>is questionable) isn't a reason for us to tolerate your rudeness.
>
>> As for falling asleep... I take it that you have timed yourself?
>>
>> Proudly top posted by someone who wonders why he is replying to something
>> this silly....
>
>You replied because you are a clueless uneducated nerk with too much
>time on
>his hands. NTTAWWT. Some very nice people are also nerks - unfortunately
>- you're not one of them.

 

You're the rude one. I appreciate peoples contributions without
getting my undies all in a twist about top/bottom/******* posting. I
hope he keeps up the good work and that you learn to stop being such
an arrogant *****.

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 09:54:42 -0500, admin <admin@192.168.0.2> wrote:

>Jim Warman wrote:
>> How long do you stare at your before you flush???
>
>Why - do you want to stare at them instead? I'm sure Dave can save some
>for you.
>
>> Welcome to the modern world.... spelling anything correctly is optional
>> (exclusive of typos)...
>
>I guess it is if you want to come off as an uneducated twit. Oh - you
>are an uneducated twit. Sorry.
>
>> grammar will never be one of my strong points (what
>> do you expect from a grade 8 drop-out).
>
>Point taken. Was it drugs or just stupidity?
>
>> I couldn't conjugate a verb or parse
>> a statement to save my life.... BUT... I do fix cars for a living.... and I
>> do offer my "wisdom" freely... I don't think that where my reply resides
>> should be a bone of contention.
>
>Simply because you THINK you have something valuable to offer us (which
>is questionable) isn't a reason for us to tolerate your rudeness.
>
>> As for falling asleep... I take it that you have timed yourself?
>>
>> Proudly top posted by someone who wonders why he is replying to something
>> this silly....
>
>You replied because you are a clueless uneducated nerk with too much
>time on
>his hands. NTTAWWT. Some very nice people are also nerks - unfortunately
>- you're not one of them.