Re: Apology to all for my Netiquette "Sorry"
#221
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Apology to all for my Netiquette "Sorry"
Peter Bell wrote:
>In message <442cacea.96365484@nntp.charter.net>
> secretspam@ihatespam.net (SgtSilicon) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 09:23:28 +0100, Peter Bell <peter@invalid.org.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >However, top posting removes any inclination or incentive to snip,
>> >leading to horrendously long messages, often with .sigs included.
>>
>> Now we have you. First of all, it's funny how you say massive quoting
>> is worse, yet you dont start your rabid salivating until you see top
>> posts. Second, you (albeit inversely) admit that top posting makes it
>> easier to deal with massive quoting in messages.
>
>I have posted two lines in this thread, yet you appear to be able to
>read a great deal into the statement I made!
What do you expect from a top-posting moron? Logic?
>In message <442cacea.96365484@nntp.charter.net>
> secretspam@ihatespam.net (SgtSilicon) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 09:23:28 +0100, Peter Bell <peter@invalid.org.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >However, top posting removes any inclination or incentive to snip,
>> >leading to horrendously long messages, often with .sigs included.
>>
>> Now we have you. First of all, it's funny how you say massive quoting
>> is worse, yet you dont start your rabid salivating until you see top
>> posts. Second, you (albeit inversely) admit that top posting makes it
>> easier to deal with massive quoting in messages.
>
>I have posted two lines in this thread, yet you appear to be able to
>read a great deal into the statement I made!
What do you expect from a top-posting moron? Logic?
#222
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Apology to all for my Netiquette "Sorry"
Peter Bell wrote:
>In message <442cacea.96365484@nntp.charter.net>
> secretspam@ihatespam.net (SgtSilicon) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 09:23:28 +0100, Peter Bell <peter@invalid.org.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >However, top posting removes any inclination or incentive to snip,
>> >leading to horrendously long messages, often with .sigs included.
>>
>> Now we have you. First of all, it's funny how you say massive quoting
>> is worse, yet you dont start your rabid salivating until you see top
>> posts. Second, you (albeit inversely) admit that top posting makes it
>> easier to deal with massive quoting in messages.
>
>I have posted two lines in this thread, yet you appear to be able to
>read a great deal into the statement I made!
What do you expect from a top-posting moron? Logic?
>In message <442cacea.96365484@nntp.charter.net>
> secretspam@ihatespam.net (SgtSilicon) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 09:23:28 +0100, Peter Bell <peter@invalid.org.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >However, top posting removes any inclination or incentive to snip,
>> >leading to horrendously long messages, often with .sigs included.
>>
>> Now we have you. First of all, it's funny how you say massive quoting
>> is worse, yet you dont start your rabid salivating until you see top
>> posts. Second, you (albeit inversely) admit that top posting makes it
>> easier to deal with massive quoting in messages.
>
>I have posted two lines in this thread, yet you appear to be able to
>read a great deal into the statement I made!
What do you expect from a top-posting moron? Logic?
#223
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Apology to all for my Netiquette "Sorry"
Peter Bell wrote:
>In message <442cacea.96365484@nntp.charter.net>
> secretspam@ihatespam.net (SgtSilicon) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 09:23:28 +0100, Peter Bell <peter@invalid.org.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >However, top posting removes any inclination or incentive to snip,
>> >leading to horrendously long messages, often with .sigs included.
>>
>> Now we have you. First of all, it's funny how you say massive quoting
>> is worse, yet you dont start your rabid salivating until you see top
>> posts. Second, you (albeit inversely) admit that top posting makes it
>> easier to deal with massive quoting in messages.
>
>I have posted two lines in this thread, yet you appear to be able to
>read a great deal into the statement I made!
What do you expect from a top-posting moron? Logic?
>In message <442cacea.96365484@nntp.charter.net>
> secretspam@ihatespam.net (SgtSilicon) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 09:23:28 +0100, Peter Bell <peter@invalid.org.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >However, top posting removes any inclination or incentive to snip,
>> >leading to horrendously long messages, often with .sigs included.
>>
>> Now we have you. First of all, it's funny how you say massive quoting
>> is worse, yet you dont start your rabid salivating until you see top
>> posts. Second, you (albeit inversely) admit that top posting makes it
>> easier to deal with massive quoting in messages.
>
>I have posted two lines in this thread, yet you appear to be able to
>read a great deal into the statement I made!
What do you expect from a top-posting moron? Logic?
#224
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Apology to all for my Netiquette "Sorry"
Ed Pirrero wrote:
>SgtSilicon wrote:
>> I'm not going to debate it.
>
>There's nothing to debate. You're wrong no matter what way you look at
>it, except from a laziness/"me first, screw you" viewpoint.
>
>> I've debated it ad nauseum in the past
>> and besides, I don't owe you or anyone that anyway.
>
>As long as it pleases you, to hell with anyone else. Yeah, I already
>had that one figured.
>
>> Top posting makes
>> more sense.
>
>For the lazy who can be bothered to move their cursors, who don't like
>to trim, and for those who read from the bottom up.
Exactly. It's pure selfish laziness, making it impossible to have a
quality, point-by-point discusssion.
"Oh dear, it's easier for ME to top-post. Never mind the MANY who
will have to decipher what I wrote."
>SgtSilicon wrote:
>> I'm not going to debate it.
>
>There's nothing to debate. You're wrong no matter what way you look at
>it, except from a laziness/"me first, screw you" viewpoint.
>
>> I've debated it ad nauseum in the past
>> and besides, I don't owe you or anyone that anyway.
>
>As long as it pleases you, to hell with anyone else. Yeah, I already
>had that one figured.
>
>> Top posting makes
>> more sense.
>
>For the lazy who can be bothered to move their cursors, who don't like
>to trim, and for those who read from the bottom up.
Exactly. It's pure selfish laziness, making it impossible to have a
quality, point-by-point discusssion.
"Oh dear, it's easier for ME to top-post. Never mind the MANY who
will have to decipher what I wrote."
#225
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Apology to all for my Netiquette "Sorry"
Ed Pirrero wrote:
>SgtSilicon wrote:
>> I'm not going to debate it.
>
>There's nothing to debate. You're wrong no matter what way you look at
>it, except from a laziness/"me first, screw you" viewpoint.
>
>> I've debated it ad nauseum in the past
>> and besides, I don't owe you or anyone that anyway.
>
>As long as it pleases you, to hell with anyone else. Yeah, I already
>had that one figured.
>
>> Top posting makes
>> more sense.
>
>For the lazy who can be bothered to move their cursors, who don't like
>to trim, and for those who read from the bottom up.
Exactly. It's pure selfish laziness, making it impossible to have a
quality, point-by-point discusssion.
"Oh dear, it's easier for ME to top-post. Never mind the MANY who
will have to decipher what I wrote."
>SgtSilicon wrote:
>> I'm not going to debate it.
>
>There's nothing to debate. You're wrong no matter what way you look at
>it, except from a laziness/"me first, screw you" viewpoint.
>
>> I've debated it ad nauseum in the past
>> and besides, I don't owe you or anyone that anyway.
>
>As long as it pleases you, to hell with anyone else. Yeah, I already
>had that one figured.
>
>> Top posting makes
>> more sense.
>
>For the lazy who can be bothered to move their cursors, who don't like
>to trim, and for those who read from the bottom up.
Exactly. It's pure selfish laziness, making it impossible to have a
quality, point-by-point discusssion.
"Oh dear, it's easier for ME to top-post. Never mind the MANY who
will have to decipher what I wrote."
#226
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Apology to all for my Netiquette "Sorry"
Ed Pirrero wrote:
>SgtSilicon wrote:
>> I'm not going to debate it.
>
>There's nothing to debate. You're wrong no matter what way you look at
>it, except from a laziness/"me first, screw you" viewpoint.
>
>> I've debated it ad nauseum in the past
>> and besides, I don't owe you or anyone that anyway.
>
>As long as it pleases you, to hell with anyone else. Yeah, I already
>had that one figured.
>
>> Top posting makes
>> more sense.
>
>For the lazy who can be bothered to move their cursors, who don't like
>to trim, and for those who read from the bottom up.
Exactly. It's pure selfish laziness, making it impossible to have a
quality, point-by-point discusssion.
"Oh dear, it's easier for ME to top-post. Never mind the MANY who
will have to decipher what I wrote."
>SgtSilicon wrote:
>> I'm not going to debate it.
>
>There's nothing to debate. You're wrong no matter what way you look at
>it, except from a laziness/"me first, screw you" viewpoint.
>
>> I've debated it ad nauseum in the past
>> and besides, I don't owe you or anyone that anyway.
>
>As long as it pleases you, to hell with anyone else. Yeah, I already
>had that one figured.
>
>> Top posting makes
>> more sense.
>
>For the lazy who can be bothered to move their cursors, who don't like
>to trim, and for those who read from the bottom up.
Exactly. It's pure selfish laziness, making it impossible to have a
quality, point-by-point discusssion.
"Oh dear, it's easier for ME to top-post. Never mind the MANY who
will have to decipher what I wrote."