RANT: Post replies at the top!
07-26-2004, 03:14 PM
#41
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?
07-26-2004, 03:29 PM
#42
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Post replies at the top!
"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
>
>
>
Will do!
;-)
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
>
>
>
Will do!
;-)
07-26-2004, 03:29 PM
#43
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Post replies at the top!
"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
>
>
>
Will do!
;-)
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
>
>
>
Will do!
;-)
07-26-2004, 03:29 PM
#44
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Post replies at the top!
"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
>
>
>
Will do!
;-)
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
>
>
>
Will do!
;-)
07-26-2004, 03:29 PM
#45
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Post replies at the top!
"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
>
>
>
Will do!
;-)
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
>
>
>
Will do!
;-)
07-26-2004, 05:34 PM
#46
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Post replies at the top!
It is frigging simple and not rocket science when in a particular news group
when in Rome so to speak do as required by that group or is that too hard to
figure out?
dumb asses beget dumb asses.
--
HarryS
"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
>
>
when in Rome so to speak do as required by that group or is that too hard to
figure out?
dumb asses beget dumb asses.
--
HarryS
"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
>
>
07-26-2004, 05:34 PM
#47
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Post replies at the top!
It is frigging simple and not rocket science when in a particular news group
when in Rome so to speak do as required by that group or is that too hard to
figure out?
dumb asses beget dumb asses.
--
HarryS
"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
>
>
when in Rome so to speak do as required by that group or is that too hard to
figure out?
dumb asses beget dumb asses.
--
HarryS
"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
>
>
07-26-2004, 05:34 PM
#48
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Post replies at the top!
It is frigging simple and not rocket science when in a particular news group
when in Rome so to speak do as required by that group or is that too hard to
figure out?
dumb asses beget dumb asses.
--
HarryS
"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
>
>
when in Rome so to speak do as required by that group or is that too hard to
figure out?
dumb asses beget dumb asses.
--
HarryS
"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
>
>
07-26-2004, 05:34 PM
#49
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Post replies at the top!
It is frigging simple and not rocket science when in a particular news group
when in Rome so to speak do as required by that group or is that too hard to
figure out?
dumb asses beget dumb asses.
--
HarryS
"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
>
>
when in Rome so to speak do as required by that group or is that too hard to
figure out?
dumb asses beget dumb asses.
--
HarryS
"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
>
>
07-26-2004, 10:56 PM
#50
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Post replies at the top!
It violates the older netiquette standards from back when threaded
newsreaders [even plain text style] were still green.
I prefer the netiquette that says if most folks in a group tend to top
post...it is ruder to mixpost than to simply follow the group norm.
And except in strict bottom-post groups, it is rude to make an issue
of it.
CRWLR proclaimed:
> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
newsreaders [even plain text style] were still green.
I prefer the netiquette that says if most folks in a group tend to top
post...it is ruder to mixpost than to simply follow the group norm.
And except in strict bottom-post groups, it is rude to make an issue
of it.
CRWLR proclaimed:
> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
