On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 04:16:16 GMT, (Mike_in_SD)
Gave us:

quote:
If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you summarize
the original at the top of the message, o

]
Yes. This means QUOTE the original pertinent material, idiot, NOT
that you should post your CRAP at the top of the reply.

You could be a little more retarded, just not in this life.

NOTE where I summarized your point first, at the top, with a quoting
from you, and then straightened out your bent perception of its
meaning in my subsequent reply material BELOW it!

Get a clue, dip****.

In article ,
says...
In article , MassiveProng wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 01:25:01 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
Gave us:

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:20:57 -0700, MassiveProng
wrote:

**** off, then die in any order you want.

You are still infantile as ever.

Said the retarded **** that said I needed a brain?

Hypocrite!

Oh, well. Meanwhile, please check
with someone other than your dad about M80's

I lived in Cincinnati, right across the river from the Kentucky
plant that made them for the Army, you retarded ****.

and where their oxygen
comes from. You may learn something.

I am fully aware of how they are constructed, and why there IS
airspace in them.

Consider how much oxygen is consumed when they explode, compared to how
much oxygen is in that airspace:

M80s have something like 99% or more of their oxidation done by oxygen
in non-gaseous material that they have.

I doubt that any of the oxidizer comes from "air". It's not where it
needs to be when the flame front gets there.

--
Keith

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 01:55:57 GMT, "Jack"
wrote:




Other than just pig-headed stubbornness, is there any reason why you
top-post?

I work in an environment where a very large amount of communication is done
via email between a very large number of people in a Fortune 500 company and
everyone top posts.

---
This is not a very large Fortune 500 company and this is not email.
This is USENET and hardly anyone top posts.
---

It just seems right to us. I was not trying to be difficult.
I was only ignorant of your adamancy.

---
I assumed, since you've been here for about a month and have posted
17 articles, (and no doubt read many more threads) that you would
have noticed that bottom posting was the norm. Since that didn't
seem to be the case, I asked you to bottom post and when you refused
to I was curious about your motivation.

For your edification:

http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

--
JF

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 04:16:16 GMT,
(Mike_in_SD) wrote:

(MassiveProng) wrote in
:

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 20:20:42 GMT, (mojo) Gave
us:


some people dont want to have to scroll every msg down to the second page
to read the response .. !!


Lazy ****tard. Get out of Usenet then you retarded ****.


Here is a quote (cut and paste actually) from the very page you guys
keep sending me to .. to see YOUR rules ..

read the last line of YOUR ****ing bible ...

but I guess you decide which rules apply ...

quote:
If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you summarize
the original at the top of the message, or include just enough text of the
original to give a context. This will make sure readers understand when
they start to read your response. Since NetNews, especially, is
proliferated by distributing the postings from one host to another, it is
possible to see a response to a message before seeing the original. Giving
context helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!

***

so yes .. I understand the bottom post thing .. but .. if YOU are too
****ing LAZY to trim the post then put up with the top post. period

---
Sez who?

And anyway, two wrongs don't make a right.


--
JF

Jack wrote:


Other than just pig-headed stubbornness, is there any reason why you
top-post?

I work in an environment where a very large amount of communication is done
via email between a very large number of people in a Fortune 500 company and
everyone top posts. It just seems right to us. I was not trying to be
difficult. I was only ignorant of your adamancy.


This isn't email, its Usenet.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:33:31 -0500, John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 01:55:57 GMT, "Jack"
someone wrote
Other than just pig-headed stubbornness, is there any reason why you
top-post?

I work in an environment where a very large amount of communication is done
via email between a very large number of people in a Fortune 500 company and
everyone top posts.

This is not a very large Fortune 500 company and this is not email.
This is USENET and hardly anyone top posts.
....
For your edification:

http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

Excellent page!

Thanks!
Rich

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:05:58 +0000, MassiveProng wrote:

testing

"MassiveProng" wrote in

Why have you adopted the pseudonym of the most hated, reviled, stupid,
profane, useless piece of crap that USENET has ever produced?

Thanks,
Rich

just a thought how about using wireless. I guess the quality might not
be good and will have some delay.

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:00:51 -0400, krw wrote:

In article , says...
In article , MassiveProng
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 01:25:01 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
Gave us:

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:20:57 -0700, MassiveProng
wrote:

**** off, then die in any order you want.

You are still infantile as ever.

Said the retarded **** that said I needed a brain?

Hypocrite!

Oh, well. Meanwhile, please check
with someone other than your dad about M80's

I lived in Cincinnati, right across the river from the Kentucky
plant that made them for the Army, you retarded ****.

and where their oxygen
comes from. You may learn something.

I am fully aware of how they are constructed, and why there IS
airspace in them.

Consider how much oxygen is consumed when they explode, compared to
how
much oxygen is in that airspace:

M80s have something like 99% or more of their oxidation done by oxygen
in non-gaseous material that they have.

I doubt that any of the oxidizer comes from "air". It's not where it
needs to be when the flame front gets there.

In fact, air just gets in the way - some portion of the blast energy gets
dissipated by the shock wave.

Cheers!
Rich

YD wrote:

Late at night, by candle light, MassiveProng
penned this immortal
opus:


On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 10:46:24 -0300, YD Gave us:


Late at night, by candle light, John Fields
penned this immortal opus:


On 17 Mar 2007 11:57:20 -0700, "jerry"
wrote:


On Mar 17, 2:16 pm, "jim menning" wrote:

"jerry" wrote in message

oglegroups.com...






Gurus,

I need your help...

I am an amateur triathlete and I'm getting ready for the start of the
triathlon season and I had this problem last year that I'm trying to
solve.

The problem is that during an open-water triathlon swim I need to skip
a stroke every so often to lift my head out of the water and site the
next turn buoy. I usually find myself off course by a few yards and
need to make corrections. This costs me time from being off course
and from skipping a stroke. So, I had this idea to take apart an old
digital camera or picture phone and mount the camera part to the back
of my head and attach the LCD part in front of my goggles.

Sound

Will such a device be illegal in competition?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not yet!

---
But, if it's patented, it'll be illegal for you to build one.

A one-off for personal use is allowed.


One used to be able to make a "cable box" for "experimental
purposes".

They still may, but using it on the cable line is where the felony
theft of service comes in. Doesn't do much just sitting there without
a cable hooked to it.

If I EVER made a "one off" of someone else's patented product or
process, I would certainly be in correspondence with that person.

It is just plain good civil practice, and if you claim to be a
member of civil society, you should have enough presence of mind to
know the difference between an experiment and a rip off or avoidance
of paying one's dues.


Oh **** off. I'll do whatever I damn well please and there's nothing
you can do about it except **** and moan.

- YD.

DOn't worry YD, he's a ****, that is why he can **** and moan at the
same time!..


--
"I'm never wrong, once i thought i was, but was mistaken"
Real Programmers Do things like this.
http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 18:05:47 GMT, Rich Grise Gave
us:

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:05:58 +0000, MassiveProng wrote:

testing

"MassiveProng" wrote in

Why have you adopted the pseudonym of the most hated, reviled, stupid,
profane, useless piece of crap that USENET has ever produced?



Can't handle my jabs... that's all you're about, BOY!

Late at night, by candle light, MassiveProng
penned this immortal
opus:

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 01:05:53 -0300, YD Gave us:

Late at night, by candle light, MassiveProng
penned this immortal
opus:

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 10:46:24 -0300, YD Gave us:

Late at night, by candle light, John Fields
penned this immortal opus:

On 17 Mar 2007 11:57:20 -0700, "jerry"
wrote:

On Mar 17, 2:16 pm, "jim menning" wrote:
"jerry" wrote in message

oups.com...





Gurus,

I need your help...

I am an amateur triathlete and I'm getting ready for the start of the
triathlon season and I had this problem last year that I'm trying to
solve.

The problem is that during an open-water triathlon swim I need to skip
a stroke every so often to lift my head out of the water and site the
next turn buoy. I usually find myself off course by a few yards and
need to make corrections. This costs me time from being off course
and from skipping a stroke. So, I had this idea to take apart an old
digital camera or picture phone and mount the camera part to the back
of my head and attach the LCD part in front of my goggles.

Sound

Will such a device be illegal in competition?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not yet!

---
But, if it's patented, it'll be illegal for you to build one.

A one-off for personal use is allowed.


One used to be able to make a "cable box" for "experimental
purposes".

They still may, but using it on the cable line is where the felony
theft of service comes in. Doesn't do much just sitting there without
a cable hooked to it.

If I EVER made a "one off" of someone else's patented product or
process, I would certainly be in correspondence with that person.

It is just plain good civil practice, and if you claim to be a
member of civil society, you should have enough presence of mind to
know the difference between an experiment and a rip off or avoidance
of paying one's dues.

Oh **** off. I'll do whatever I damn well please and there's nothing
you can do about it except **** and moan.


That is only due to the fact that I follow laws. If that were not
the case, dumb ****tards like you would be plowing fields at a prison
farm, because that is where I would ship your ass, trial or not.

Oh **** off a bit more. If I find the design for something that
interests me I'll build it no matter what. Now stick that in your
prong and light it up.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

Late at night, by candle light, Jamie
t penned this
immortal opus:

YD wrote:

Late at night, by candle light, MassiveProng
penned this immortal
opus:


On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 10:46:24 -0300, YD Gave us:


Late at night, by candle light, John Fields
penned this immortal opus:


On 17 Mar 2007 11:57:20 -0700, "jerry"
wrote:


On Mar 17, 2:16 pm, "jim menning" wrote:

"jerry" wrote in message

ooglegroups.com...






Gurus,

I need your help...

I am an amateur triathlete and I'm getting ready for the start of the
triathlon season and I had this problem last year that I'm trying to
solve.

The problem is that during an open-water triathlon swim I need to skip
a stroke every so often to lift my head out of the water and site the
next turn buoy. I usually find myself off course by a few yards and
need to make corrections. This costs me time from being off course
and from skipping a stroke. So, I had this idea to take apart an old
digital camera or picture phone and mount the camera part to the back
of my head and attach the LCD part in front of my goggles.

Sound

Will such a device be illegal in competition?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not yet!

---
But, if it's patented, it'll be illegal for you to build one.

A one-off for personal use is allowed.


One used to be able to make a "cable box" for "experimental
purposes".

They still may, but using it on the cable line is where the felony
theft of service comes in. Doesn't do much just sitting there without
a cable hooked to it.

If I EVER made a "one off" of someone else's patented product or
process, I would certainly be in correspondence with that person.

It is just plain good civil practice, and if you claim to be a
member of civil society, you should have enough presence of mind to
know the difference between an experiment and a rip off or avoidance
of paying one's dues.


Oh **** off. I'll do whatever I damn well please and there's nothing
you can do about it except **** and moan.

- YD.

DOn't worry YD, he's a ****, that is why he can **** and moan at the
same time!..

LOL!

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 18:05:47 GMT, Rich Grise Gave
us:

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:05:58 +0000, MassiveProng wrote:

testing

"MassiveProng" wrote in

Why have you adopted the pseudonym of the most hated, reviled, stupid,
profane, useless piece of crap that USENET has ever produced?


Because the ****ing retarded twit doesn't realize that spoofing
someone else's posting info is a severe TOS violation, and that
verizon will soon be letting him know that very thing.

On Mar 17, 5:21 pm, John Fields wrote:

But, if it's patented, it'll be illegal for you to build one.

It's illegal to build one to the patent specs, however patents are
very specific. Using something besides fiber optics, and mounting the
screen in a different manner pretty much gets him around this patent.

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:14:21 +0000, feebo Gave us:

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 07:36:00 -0700, MassiveProng
wrote:

I do. It was the same silver powder used for photography. Very
fast burn, very bright flash. The fireworks folks still use it in
almost everything. It is called flash powder.



he he... "Flash powder" lol!


That's what it is called, you ****ing retard!

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:13:33 +0000, feebo Gave us:

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:08:48 -0700, MassiveProng
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 02:03:52 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
Gave us:

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:54:55 -0700, MassiveProng
wrote:

snip
I am fully aware of how they are constructed, and why there IS
airspace in them.
snip

You still abundantly proved you know nothing about their chemistry to
everyone. You still are in serious need of almost any education.

Best of luck with your infantile insults, which are at least at a
level consistent with your science knowledge.



I would bet right now, ****tard, that you do not even know what is
in one. (the old, out of production REAL versions, not the **** out
there today).

"bangy stuff"?


No. That is what you let your boyfriend cream you up with.

BTW sinced you like to lecture people on usenet etiquette...

**** you , retard.

STOP ****ING CROSS-POSTING TO ALT.WORLD.PLUS.DOG!!!!

You're a goddamned idiot.