RANT: Post replies at the top!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Post replies at the top!
Actually, your rant is a good one, but apparently violates all usenet
etiquitte standards.
I prefer to top post for simplicity of all readers, my comments are found
immediately when a post is opened, and if one wants to see what in Hell I am
talking about, they can elect to either scroll down or open the post
immediately above mine. I also participate in newsgroups where the other
participants are more refined that you idiot gearheads - I mean that in the
most respectful manner possible - and they always complain. They seem to
insist on wading though paragraph upon paragraph over and over again to get
to a reply that says, "I think you are full of if." If I think somebody is
full of it, it seems to me that finding that at the top would make much more
sense.
"Endo" <me@oh.my> wrote in message
news:7u2dnTk2UdWZUJncRVn-rw@comcast.com...
> Who wants to scroll through the same message 10 times to read all the
> replies because you posted at the bottom of the original text? Take an
> example from Bill ------ and Jerry Bransford...post your reply at the top.
> Most newsreaders nest the replies under the original anyway, so it's not
> like you need a refresher of the topic before reading every reply.
>
> Oh, and while i'm at it...trim the excess off the quoted text. We don't
> need 3 pages of crap tacked on the end of the old message either. People
> with grandiose signatures are the main offenders. Every reply adding
> another page of nothing but signature, and that of course means you have
to
> scroll through 4 pages now just to read a one line reply to a post.
Yeesh.
> /rant
>
>
etiquitte standards.
I prefer to top post for simplicity of all readers, my comments are found
immediately when a post is opened, and if one wants to see what in Hell I am
talking about, they can elect to either scroll down or open the post
immediately above mine. I also participate in newsgroups where the other
participants are more refined that you idiot gearheads - I mean that in the
most respectful manner possible - and they always complain. They seem to
insist on wading though paragraph upon paragraph over and over again to get
to a reply that says, "I think you are full of if." If I think somebody is
full of it, it seems to me that finding that at the top would make much more
sense.
"Endo" <me@oh.my> wrote in message
news:7u2dnTk2UdWZUJncRVn-rw@comcast.com...
> Who wants to scroll through the same message 10 times to read all the
> replies because you posted at the bottom of the original text? Take an
> example from Bill ------ and Jerry Bransford...post your reply at the top.
> Most newsreaders nest the replies under the original anyway, so it's not
> like you need a refresher of the topic before reading every reply.
>
> Oh, and while i'm at it...trim the excess off the quoted text. We don't
> need 3 pages of crap tacked on the end of the old message either. People
> with grandiose signatures are the main offenders. Every reply adding
> another page of nothing but signature, and that of course means you have
to
> scroll through 4 pages now just to read a one line reply to a post.
Yeesh.
> /rant
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Post replies at the top!
Actually, your rant is a good one, but apparently violates all usenet
etiquitte standards.
I prefer to top post for simplicity of all readers, my comments are found
immediately when a post is opened, and if one wants to see what in Hell I am
talking about, they can elect to either scroll down or open the post
immediately above mine. I also participate in newsgroups where the other
participants are more refined that you idiot gearheads - I mean that in the
most respectful manner possible - and they always complain. They seem to
insist on wading though paragraph upon paragraph over and over again to get
to a reply that says, "I think you are full of if." If I think somebody is
full of it, it seems to me that finding that at the top would make much more
sense.
"Endo" <me@oh.my> wrote in message
news:7u2dnTk2UdWZUJncRVn-rw@comcast.com...
> Who wants to scroll through the same message 10 times to read all the
> replies because you posted at the bottom of the original text? Take an
> example from Bill ------ and Jerry Bransford...post your reply at the top.
> Most newsreaders nest the replies under the original anyway, so it's not
> like you need a refresher of the topic before reading every reply.
>
> Oh, and while i'm at it...trim the excess off the quoted text. We don't
> need 3 pages of crap tacked on the end of the old message either. People
> with grandiose signatures are the main offenders. Every reply adding
> another page of nothing but signature, and that of course means you have
to
> scroll through 4 pages now just to read a one line reply to a post.
Yeesh.
> /rant
>
>
etiquitte standards.
I prefer to top post for simplicity of all readers, my comments are found
immediately when a post is opened, and if one wants to see what in Hell I am
talking about, they can elect to either scroll down or open the post
immediately above mine. I also participate in newsgroups where the other
participants are more refined that you idiot gearheads - I mean that in the
most respectful manner possible - and they always complain. They seem to
insist on wading though paragraph upon paragraph over and over again to get
to a reply that says, "I think you are full of if." If I think somebody is
full of it, it seems to me that finding that at the top would make much more
sense.
"Endo" <me@oh.my> wrote in message
news:7u2dnTk2UdWZUJncRVn-rw@comcast.com...
> Who wants to scroll through the same message 10 times to read all the
> replies because you posted at the bottom of the original text? Take an
> example from Bill ------ and Jerry Bransford...post your reply at the top.
> Most newsreaders nest the replies under the original anyway, so it's not
> like you need a refresher of the topic before reading every reply.
>
> Oh, and while i'm at it...trim the excess off the quoted text. We don't
> need 3 pages of crap tacked on the end of the old message either. People
> with grandiose signatures are the main offenders. Every reply adding
> another page of nothing but signature, and that of course means you have
to
> scroll through 4 pages now just to read a one line reply to a post.
Yeesh.
> /rant
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Post replies at the top!
Actually, your rant is a good one, but apparently violates all usenet
etiquitte standards.
I prefer to top post for simplicity of all readers, my comments are found
immediately when a post is opened, and if one wants to see what in Hell I am
talking about, they can elect to either scroll down or open the post
immediately above mine. I also participate in newsgroups where the other
participants are more refined that you idiot gearheads - I mean that in the
most respectful manner possible - and they always complain. They seem to
insist on wading though paragraph upon paragraph over and over again to get
to a reply that says, "I think you are full of if." If I think somebody is
full of it, it seems to me that finding that at the top would make much more
sense.
"Endo" <me@oh.my> wrote in message
news:7u2dnTk2UdWZUJncRVn-rw@comcast.com...
> Who wants to scroll through the same message 10 times to read all the
> replies because you posted at the bottom of the original text? Take an
> example from Bill ------ and Jerry Bransford...post your reply at the top.
> Most newsreaders nest the replies under the original anyway, so it's not
> like you need a refresher of the topic before reading every reply.
>
> Oh, and while i'm at it...trim the excess off the quoted text. We don't
> need 3 pages of crap tacked on the end of the old message either. People
> with grandiose signatures are the main offenders. Every reply adding
> another page of nothing but signature, and that of course means you have
to
> scroll through 4 pages now just to read a one line reply to a post.
Yeesh.
> /rant
>
>
etiquitte standards.
I prefer to top post for simplicity of all readers, my comments are found
immediately when a post is opened, and if one wants to see what in Hell I am
talking about, they can elect to either scroll down or open the post
immediately above mine. I also participate in newsgroups where the other
participants are more refined that you idiot gearheads - I mean that in the
most respectful manner possible - and they always complain. They seem to
insist on wading though paragraph upon paragraph over and over again to get
to a reply that says, "I think you are full of if." If I think somebody is
full of it, it seems to me that finding that at the top would make much more
sense.
"Endo" <me@oh.my> wrote in message
news:7u2dnTk2UdWZUJncRVn-rw@comcast.com...
> Who wants to scroll through the same message 10 times to read all the
> replies because you posted at the bottom of the original text? Take an
> example from Bill ------ and Jerry Bransford...post your reply at the top.
> Most newsreaders nest the replies under the original anyway, so it's not
> like you need a refresher of the topic before reading every reply.
>
> Oh, and while i'm at it...trim the excess off the quoted text. We don't
> need 3 pages of crap tacked on the end of the old message either. People
> with grandiose signatures are the main offenders. Every reply adding
> another page of nothing but signature, and that of course means you have
to
> scroll through 4 pages now just to read a one line reply to a post.
Yeesh.
> /rant
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: RANT: Post replies at the top!
Just to be sure you and the regulars here got what I was aiming for and
what I aiming away from: I very deliberately included the "Why don't you
get a" part (as in "why don't you get a real
newsreader/computer/beer/engine/truck/life"), to make it as distinct and
distant as possible from your trademark "Real Jeeps do/don't have a..."
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, L.W.([iso-8859-1] ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Every notice, that those complaining about the use of "Real" know
> exactly what it is, and that they don't have a Real whatever?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
> Lee Ayrton wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> "Most" is not all. Just because your reader has a function it doesn't
>> mean that the next guy's does -- or that he wants it to. "Why don't you
>> get a real [foo]" is a lame and adolescent taunt, don't you think?
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: RANT: Post replies at the top!
Just to be sure you and the regulars here got what I was aiming for and
what I aiming away from: I very deliberately included the "Why don't you
get a" part (as in "why don't you get a real
newsreader/computer/beer/engine/truck/life"), to make it as distinct and
distant as possible from your trademark "Real Jeeps do/don't have a..."
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, L.W.([iso-8859-1] ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Every notice, that those complaining about the use of "Real" know
> exactly what it is, and that they don't have a Real whatever?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
> Lee Ayrton wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> "Most" is not all. Just because your reader has a function it doesn't
>> mean that the next guy's does -- or that he wants it to. "Why don't you
>> get a real [foo]" is a lame and adolescent taunt, don't you think?
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: RANT: Post replies at the top!
Just to be sure you and the regulars here got what I was aiming for and
what I aiming away from: I very deliberately included the "Why don't you
get a" part (as in "why don't you get a real
newsreader/computer/beer/engine/truck/life"), to make it as distinct and
distant as possible from your trademark "Real Jeeps do/don't have a..."
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, L.W.([iso-8859-1] ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Every notice, that those complaining about the use of "Real" know
> exactly what it is, and that they don't have a Real whatever?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
> Lee Ayrton wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> "Most" is not all. Just because your reader has a function it doesn't
>> mean that the next guy's does -- or that he wants it to. "Why don't you
>> get a real [foo]" is a lame and adolescent taunt, don't you think?
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: RANT: Post replies at the top!
Just to be sure you and the regulars here got what I was aiming for and
what I aiming away from: I very deliberately included the "Why don't you
get a" part (as in "why don't you get a real
newsreader/computer/beer/engine/truck/life"), to make it as distinct and
distant as possible from your trademark "Real Jeeps do/don't have a..."
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, L.W.([iso-8859-1] ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Every notice, that those complaining about the use of "Real" know
> exactly what it is, and that they don't have a Real whatever?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
> Lee Ayrton wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> "Most" is not all. Just because your reader has a function it doesn't
>> mean that the next guy's does -- or that he wants it to. "Why don't you
>> get a real [foo]" is a lame and adolescent taunt, don't you think?
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: RANT: Post replies at the top!
No more so than the person that is using the "Real" taunt not have what it
is they think is real.
--
benito -
01 TJ
76 CJ
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:410531BC.D948608F@***.net...
> Every notice, that those complaining about the use of "Real" know
> exactly what it is, and that they don't have a Real whatever?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
> Lee Ayrton wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> > "Most" is not all. Just because your reader has a function it doesn't
> > mean that the next guy's does -- or that he wants it to. "Why don't you
> > get a real [foo]" is a lame and adolescent taunt, don't you think?
is they think is real.
--
benito -
01 TJ
76 CJ
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:410531BC.D948608F@***.net...
> Every notice, that those complaining about the use of "Real" know
> exactly what it is, and that they don't have a Real whatever?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
> Lee Ayrton wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> > "Most" is not all. Just because your reader has a function it doesn't
> > mean that the next guy's does -- or that he wants it to. "Why don't you
> > get a real [foo]" is a lame and adolescent taunt, don't you think?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: RANT: Post replies at the top!
No more so than the person that is using the "Real" taunt not have what it
is they think is real.
--
benito -
01 TJ
76 CJ
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:410531BC.D948608F@***.net...
> Every notice, that those complaining about the use of "Real" know
> exactly what it is, and that they don't have a Real whatever?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
> Lee Ayrton wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> > "Most" is not all. Just because your reader has a function it doesn't
> > mean that the next guy's does -- or that he wants it to. "Why don't you
> > get a real [foo]" is a lame and adolescent taunt, don't you think?
is they think is real.
--
benito -
01 TJ
76 CJ
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:410531BC.D948608F@***.net...
> Every notice, that those complaining about the use of "Real" know
> exactly what it is, and that they don't have a Real whatever?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
> Lee Ayrton wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> > "Most" is not all. Just because your reader has a function it doesn't
> > mean that the next guy's does -- or that he wants it to. "Why don't you
> > get a real [foo]" is a lame and adolescent taunt, don't you think?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: RANT: Post replies at the top!
No more so than the person that is using the "Real" taunt not have what it
is they think is real.
--
benito -
01 TJ
76 CJ
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:410531BC.D948608F@***.net...
> Every notice, that those complaining about the use of "Real" know
> exactly what it is, and that they don't have a Real whatever?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
> Lee Ayrton wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> > "Most" is not all. Just because your reader has a function it doesn't
> > mean that the next guy's does -- or that he wants it to. "Why don't you
> > get a real [foo]" is a lame and adolescent taunt, don't you think?
is they think is real.
--
benito -
01 TJ
76 CJ
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:410531BC.D948608F@***.net...
> Every notice, that those complaining about the use of "Real" know
> exactly what it is, and that they don't have a Real whatever?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
> Lee Ayrton wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> > "Most" is not all. Just because your reader has a function it doesn't
> > mean that the next guy's does -- or that he wants it to. "Why don't you
> > get a real [foo]" is a lame and adolescent taunt, don't you think?