Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:

"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message
...

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

snip----

I'll keep my eyes open. Have you given any thought to land in the
general
Onalaska area? I don't get south or west much, so it's a lot easier
to
keep watch near by. I don't have a favorite real estate agent, but I
may
be able to check with one and see what's available in the Winlock/Toledo
area. . I'll let you know if I hear anything of substance. You're
likely
looking at a 5 acre minimum purchase. They're making it hard to build
on
anything less, thanks to the state and controlled development. There
are
some exceptions.


Thanks, Harold--it's much appreciated....

And no, we haven't looked around up as far as Onalaska yet--last time I
was
in that area was several years ago...been looking at the elevations and
whatnot using Google Earth, but really I need to get up there and have a
drive around--along Highway 12 anywhere to the west of Mayfield Reservoir,
else someplace along SR 508 just might do it.

--

SVL


That's much closer to home, and in general pretty nice property. Sadly,
property values have escalated seriously in the past couple years, so the
killer bargains are gone now. I'm still speechless that we paid only
$17,500 for our 5-1/2 acres with an approved septic system. Best surprise
of all was when we found out the standing alder alone was worth more than we
paid for the land.

I think you're more likely to find a good buy along 508 than along 12, but
I'll check anything that comes available. Just tonight a neighbor made
mention that he might sell off some of his land, but it's way too soon to
know anything.

Are you sure you want a stream? It's not always a good thing, for they
force you to stay away from it now----it can render property valueless in
some ways because you can't develop it. If you do, you missed a great
chance right across from me. 5 acre lots that sold for about $25,000 a few
years ago. A nice stream runs through most of them. We're high and dry,
but on a slight slope that leads to that stream.

Secluded? View? Wooded? Logged? State your choices so I don't drive you
nuts with the wrong package.

Harold

Sam wants a piece with a little geothermal activity. G but not too
much to shake the house.

John

In article t,
"John Busby" wrote:
If I am following a thread in a newsgroup, I prefer to read top posted
responses because as soon as you open the message, the latest response is
right in front of you, and you don't have to scroll down to the bottom of
the message to read it.

The problem is the nature of Usenet: there is no guarantee that the
message you will next read is the message following the last post you
read. Propagation delays mean that you could be reading a reply to
another posting. People who have short expire times on their Usenet
servers may not see the original question, or it may not yet have
propagated to that server. You have made the assumption that there is
'a' thread: the longer a discussion goes, the more likely that there
will be a number of threads with the same root thread. This thread has
already broken up into multiple threads.

Many people misunderstand the nature of Usenet and their newsreaders:
some assume that it is like a web forum and that messages remain fixed
in place and that others see the contents of a newsgroup as they do. I
have even seen people trying to refer to other postings as "The message
three up from this one", as if that makes any sense at all to anyone
other than them (and at that point in time, too).

I notice that you say "I prefer to read" and "as soon as you [i] open
the message". Usenet is not supposed to be about how everyone can cater
to a particular reader's preferences, but to act as an efficient method
of communicating one to many. This process is assisted by formatting
messages in a way that reaches as many people as possible in a concise,
clear and unambiguous manner. If you want your posting to be read and
understood by as many people as possible, then you must spend the time
writing in a way that make it worthwhile for the reader to spend the
time reading your posting. Spelling, punctuation, layout, and tone all
make a lasting impression on the reader. (This is not criticising any of
these in John's posting - otherwise I'd have sent an email - its a plea
to all of the posters out there.)

If I open a post and see four lines of text followed by a page of quoted
text, then my desire to even read that four lines of text is reduced,
since it shows a lack of courtesy in being not able to trim the material
on which you are basing your reply. The inclusion of this material must
be important, otherwise you would not have included it, right? And
therefore I need to read it to fully understand your response, right?
And so you are expecting me to read the text quoted below your response,
a post I may (or may not) have read, to understand your reply to this.
Well, I feel that it is lazy, and since I read many newsgroups and have
only a limited time to do so, asking me to try to work out how your
response relates to the following quoted text is not going to make me as
sympathetic to your post as it could be.

Quoting no text at all is roughly equivalent (in my opinion) since again
we have to do extra work to determine what the reply is in response to.

If you say "Well, I'm in a hurry, so I can't be expected to cut out all
the non-relevant lines" then you are asking us to do this work for you
when we read your posting: by top posting without trimming you are
telling us you have not bothered to spend time to write a careful and
considered opinion on some topic. I submit that the "Yeah, I agree!"
postings at the bottom of a slab of quoted text indicates that you
didn't spend any time thinking out your response - therefore the value
of your response is going to be quite low to me.

So, what do I do? Well I use a newsreader that allows me to easily
killfile people. If, as I find in some newsgroups, someone tends to post
a single line at the end of over a page of text, they get added to the
killfile for a time, usually two weeks. This is the extreme case though.
Life is too short to scroll down pages of quoted text to find "ROTFLMAO"
or "I agree", or indeed just to find a posting that just contains the
aforementioned single lines. Seeing it at the top of the posting has
saved me the scrolling, but leaves the same bad feeling in me about the
poster.

There are some cases where it *is* more appropriate to top post - such
as in emails where you might need to see the context to understand all
the issues. But, I don't get dozens of emails a day on the same topic
and would be just as annoyed by top posting in email if I had to read
the same number of emails as I manage to read of Usenet postings. Often,
emails have to be forwarded onto someone else, and this means they need
the context without having to be sent all the preceding emails and try
to work out the thread. That is not the case for Usenet.

Just because your newsreader (Microsoft's Outlook Express) puts the
cursor at the top of the quoted text does not make it right, any more
than arguing that PCs are meant to have viruses since Windows has so
many security flaws. In the early days of Usenet, many newsgroups
readers placed the cursor at the end of quoted text and even prevented
posting unless your added content exceeded the quoted text.

Some newsreaders allow you to thread postings by their Subject line,
some by Author, some by Reference. Threading by reference allows some
newsreaders to graphically show how a thread splits up. Good newsreaders
allow a reader to quickly read the posts they are interested in - the
text-based nature of Usenet makes it more information dense than forums
and Google Groups. But telling your audience to, "Get a better
newsreader", is going to alienate some of your audience - after all you
don't know what limitations they may have on using a better way of
reading your postings. Some people don't have a choice, and yet they
could be the people who have the information you want or be the people
you want reading your posts.

At the end of the day, it's about communication. If you can save one
reader a few seconds, then you have saved hundreds if not thousands the
same time - it all adds up. And they will thank you for it: not
necessarily by overt actions, but in the overall impression that your
postings make on them ("Win Friends and Influence People"). That is why
bottom posting after appropriate quoting has been found over the years
to be the best quoting method.

Bill Lee

In article 0GZlf.1118$Ev.505@fed1read06,
"SteveB" wrote:

I find that there is so much BS that the whole conversation can be clipped,
and just a reply inserted.

What BS is this: City Hall, Tractor-reconditioning, or Top Posters? I
can't tell since I think I have marked the posting that you are
responding to as 'Read' (or maybe not - I can't tell from your posting
if I have read it or have yet to read it).

As in this case, is there anyone out there who doesn't know what I'm saying,
or what I'm responding to?
I didn't think so.

I have no certainty what you are responding to, but I have an idea it
might be regarding Top Posting.

Let me see....
1) Showing the detailed headers in your posting.
2) Extracting the References: header.
3) Looking at the last entry on the line:

4) Opening this referred posting in a new window.

Ah, I see what it is about: Dave Hinz wrote,
Then your argument is with people who are too lazy to trim
old content [from their posts], rather than people who put
it in a normal place [at the bottom of the quoted text].

Ah, yes sarcasm=on Much clearer and faster than appropriate quoting
and paraphrasing! sarcasm=off

HTH
Steve

Well, since I didn't read your posting until some time after reading the
posting you were responding to, with other posts read in between, then I
would have to say: "No, your posting did not help".

Bill Lee

It's even worse to scroll all the way to the bottom to find that NOTHING is
posted!!!!!!!

"John" wrote in message
...
Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:

"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message
...

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

snip----

I'll keep my eyes open. Have you given any thought to land in the
general
Onalaska area? I don't get south or west much, so it's a lot
easier
to
keep watch near by. I don't have a favorite real estate agent, but
I
may
be able to check with one and see what's available in the
Winlock/Toledo
area. . I'll let you know if I hear anything of substance. You're
likely
looking at a 5 acre minimum purchase. They're making it hard to
build
on
anything less, thanks to the state and controlled development. There
are
some exceptions.


Thanks, Harold--it's much appreciated....

And no, we haven't looked around up as far as Onalaska yet--last time I
was
in that area was several years ago...been looking at the elevations and
whatnot using Google Earth, but really I need to get up there and have
a
drive around--along Highway 12 anywhere to the west of Mayfield
Reservoir,
else someplace along SR 508 just might do it.

--

SVL


That's much closer to home, and in general pretty nice property.
Sadly,
property values have escalated seriously in the past couple years, so the
killer bargains are gone now. I'm still speechless that we paid only
$17,500 for our 5-1/2 acres with an approved septic system. Best
surprise
of all was when we found out the standing alder alone was worth more than
we
paid for the land.

I think you're more likely to find a good buy along 508 than along 12,
but
I'll check anything that comes available. Just tonight a neighbor made
mention that he might sell off some of his land, but it's way too soon to
know anything.

Are you sure you want a stream? It's not always a good thing, for they
force you to stay away from it now----it can render property valueless in
some ways because you can't develop it. If you do, you missed a great
chance right across from me. 5 acre lots that sold for about $25,000 a
few
years ago. A nice stream runs through most of them. We're high and
dry,
but on a slight slope that leads to that stream.

Secluded? View? Wooded? Logged? State your choices so I don't drive
you
nuts with the wrong package.

Harold

Sam wants a piece with a little geothermal activity. G but not too
much to shake the house.

John

"John" wrote in message
...
Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:

"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message
...

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

snip----

I'll keep my eyes open. Have you given any thought to land in the
general
Onalaska area? I don't get south or west much, so it's a lot
easier
to
keep watch near by. I don't have a favorite real estate agent,
but I
may
be able to check with one and see what's available in the
Winlock/Toledo
area. . I'll let you know if I hear anything of substance.
You're
likely
looking at a 5 acre minimum purchase. They're making it hard to
build
on
anything less, thanks to the state and controlled development.
There
are
some exceptions.


Thanks, Harold--it's much appreciated....

And no, we haven't looked around up as far as Onalaska yet--last time
I
was
in that area was several years ago...been looking at the elevations
and
whatnot using Google Earth, but really I need to get up there and have
a
drive around--along Highway 12 anywhere to the west of Mayfield
Reservoir,
else someplace along SR 508 just might do it.

--

SVL


That's much closer to home, and in general pretty nice property.
Sadly,
property values have escalated seriously in the past couple years, so
the
killer bargains are gone now. I'm still speechless that we paid only
$17,500 for our 5-1/2 acres with an approved septic system. Best
surprise
of all was when we found out the standing alder alone was worth more
than we
paid for the land.

I think you're more likely to find a good buy along 508 than along 12,
but
I'll check anything that comes available. Just tonight a neighbor made
mention that he might sell off some of his land, but it's way too soon
to
know anything.

Are you sure you want a stream? It's not always a good thing, for they
force you to stay away from it now----it can render property valueless
in
some ways because you can't develop it. If you do, you missed a great
chance right across from me. 5 acre lots that sold for about $25,000 a
few
years ago. A nice stream runs through most of them. We're high and
dry,
but on a slight slope that leads to that stream.

Secluded? View? Wooded? Logged? State your choices so I don't drive
you
nuts with the wrong package.

Harold

Sam wants a piece with a little geothermal activity. G but not too
much to shake the house.


An 18" dia penstock and ~180 ft of head would probly do just about
everything I'm lookin for....

--

SVL

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 12:36:24 +1100, with neither quill nor qualm, Bill
Lee quickly quoth:
--snip--

At the end of the day, it's about communication. If you can save one
reader a few seconds, then you have saved hundreds if not thousands the
same time - it all adds up. And they will thank you for it: not
necessarily by overt actions, but in the overall impression that your
postings make on them ("Win Friends and Influence People"). That is why
bottom posting after appropriate quoting has been found over the years
to be the best quoting method.

Good post, Bill. Bottom or interstitial posting is the way to go.

short quote of crucial text from original message
new text

quoted text
new text, etc.


================================================== =======
The Titanic. The Hindenburg. + http://www.diversify.com
The Clintons. + Website & Graphic Design
================================================== =======

Larry and Bill,

You both are right. Your opinions are predicated on the willingness of
folks to delete everything not necessary to keep the new post in context.
Here in the real world that isn't the case and for that reason I'm sure many
of us will prefer the new posts at the top. If you are having problems with
context it should be you to do the simple scrolling, enough to establish
context and no more.

Insulting top posters needlessly isn't productive. One thing to remember...
on usenet you guys have no rank to pull!

George Willer


At the end of the day, it's about communication. If you can save one
reader a few seconds, then you have saved hundreds if not thousands the
same time - it all adds up. And they will thank you for it: not
necessarily by overt actions, but in the overall impression that your
postings make on them ("Win Friends and Influence People"). That is why
bottom posting after appropriate quoting has been found over the years
to be the best quoting method.

Good post, Bill. Bottom or interstitial posting is the way to go.

short quote of crucial text from original message
new text

quoted text
new text, etc.


================================================== =======
The Titanic. The Hindenburg. + http://www.diversify.com
The Clintons. + Website & Graphic Design
================================================== =======

Not much to do, ey? Got too much time on your hands? Got a sad empty life?

(top posted for your convenience)

steve ;-)

"Bill Lee" wrote in message
...
In article 0GZlf.1118$Ev.505@fed1read06,
"SteveB" wrote:

I find that there is so much BS that the whole conversation can be
clipped,
and just a reply inserted.

What BS is this: City Hall, Tractor-reconditioning, or Top Posters? I
can't tell since I think I have marked the posting that you are
responding to as 'Read' (or maybe not - I can't tell from your posting
if I have read it or have yet to read it).

As in this case, is there anyone out there who doesn't know what I'm
saying,
or what I'm responding to?
I didn't think so.

I have no certainty what you are responding to, but I have an idea it
might be regarding Top Posting.

Let me see....
1) Showing the detailed headers in your posting.
2) Extracting the References: header.
3) Looking at the last entry on the line:

4) Opening this referred posting in a new window.

Ah, I see what it is about: Dave Hinz wrote,
Then your argument is with people who are too lazy to trim
old content [from their posts], rather than people who put
it in a normal place [at the bottom of the quoted text].

Ah, yes sarcasm=on Much clearer and faster than appropriate quoting
and paraphrasing! sarcasm=off

HTH
Steve

Well, since I didn't read your posting until some time after reading the
posting you were responding to, with other posts read in between, then I
would have to say: "No, your posting did not help".

Bill Lee

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 18:18:46 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
"PrecisionMachinisT" quickly quoth:

--94 lines snipped--

Sam wants a piece with a little geothermal activity. G but not too
much to shake the house.


An 18" dia penstock and ~180 ft of head would probly do just about
everything I'm lookin for....

Please learn to snip your quotes, Sam.


================================================== =======
The Titanic. The Hindenburg. + http://www.diversify.com
The Clintons. + Website & Graphic Design
================================================== =======

For what it's worth, I prefer top-posting.
If I'm following a thread of interest closely enough (and if I wasn't
interested, I just wouldn't follow it at all....), I don't have any
problem keeping context with top-postings.
What really burns my a$$ is having to scroll down thru three pages of
quoted crap to see a response that is only three words long, and
totally irrelevant.

So top-post, or bottom post as you prefer. I 'm more liable to
killfile people who bottom post, especially when they don't have
enough sense to TRIM THE QUOTED CRAP to just the "needed" length.

Kudos to you George


BK


On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 21:49:59 -0500, "George Willer"
wrote:

Larry and Bill,

You both are right. Your opinions are predicated on the willingness of
folks to delete everything not necessary to keep the new post in context.
Here in the real world that isn't the case and for that reason I'm sure many
of us will prefer the new posts at the top. If you are having problems with
context it should be you to do the simple scrolling, enough to establish
context and no more.

Insulting top posters needlessly isn't productive. One thing to remember...
on usenet you guys have no rank to pull!

George Willer


At the end of the day, it's about communication. If you can save one
reader a few seconds, then you have saved hundreds if not thousands the
same time - it all adds up. And they will thank you for it: not
necessarily by overt actions, but in the overall impression that your
postings make on them ("Win Friends and Influence People"). That is why
bottom posting after appropriate quoting has been found over the years
to be the best quoting method.


Balls! If it's about communication, then the reply should come first.

So sue me...


BK

In article ,
"George Willer" wrote:

Your opinions are predicated on the willingness of
folks to delete everything not necessary to keep the new post in context.

For this reason I spent my time to write that long posting - to give the
reasons why people *should* take that time to delete extraneous text in
their posting before clicking on the button that says "Post". It's the
same way that I would try to get everyone to travel in one of two
opposing streams on a crowded sidewalk. You seem to be saying that
because not all people will join either of those streams then it is OK
for you to follow their example, even if you know this to be less
efficient. I'm trying to say that the equivalent of a top posting rule
is the arrows and line markings painted on the sidewalk. Sure you (and
others) can ignore it, but we get better results if people abide by
them. For Usenet there is RFC 1855 which describes how people should
post to try to ensure that you get the most out of other people's
postings and others get the most out of yours. Have things changed since
1995 when the RPC was written so that it is no longer relevant?

Here in the real world that isn't the case and for that reason I'm sure many
of us will prefer the new posts at the top.

Do you actually prefer new material added to the top, or can't you be
bothered with trimming out the non-relevant material that you are
replying to or paraphrasing what the thread is about? Do you just read a
few threads in one newsgroup, or do you participate in a number of
newsgroups? The reason that I ask is that I read so many threads a day
that it is impossible to remember who said exactly what without
appropriate quoting. Would you prefer everyone just posted replies
without context? Does your newsreader thread articles so that "just
replies" is viable on your computer?

These are real questions: I am interested in your responses. Like I said
in my longer posting: I top post in some email messages, because it is
appropriate there. I post inline replies in Usenet because it is
appropriate here.

When I read a newsgroup, the message disappears from my list of articles
after being read and the newsgroup window is closed, so I usually can't
see articles read yesterday or last week (nor would I want them still
listed). Thus I lose context of your reply if you just put your reply as
the only content of a reply. If the article you are replying to has not
yet reached my Usenet server, but your reply has then I have no idea of
what you are replying to unless you dump the original in your reply.
Even then I'm not sure, since you may have edited out relevant sections
of that posting that provide a complete record of the original poster.
Since the posting is yet to come, then I'll have to read the original
later when it does arrive at my server.

I notice that you (Larry) are using Outlook Express - I don't have that
so I fired up a copy of Entourage (Mac) to see what the experience of
reading Usenet was like "the Microsoft Way". If your Outlook Express is
like Entourage, then you have my sympathy. I note that it does, by
default, put the cursor at the top of your reply by default, so I can
understand why a newcomer to Usenet might think that it operates the
same way that email does (since it is presented that way).


If you are having problems with
context it should be you to do the simple scrolling, enough to establish
context and no more.

As I said, I think it is the responsibility of a poster to minimise the
work that their intended reader should go through to understand their
message in the right context. If you say that I should start scrolling
through an entire message to see how your reply relates to the previous
one, then that is sometimes just too hard to bother with and fraught
with misinterpretation. What if I think the sentence or point that you
are making is in response to a different part of the message that you
are responding to? If there are two questions posed in an article, and
you answered one of them, is someone able to tell from your reply which
one you've responded to?

Dumping someone else's quoted posting is (to me) lazy and implies that
someone have spent little time on this posting, and thus a greater
chance that their arguments or information is not as well thought out as
it could be. Just like a posting full of language like, "any1 can u use
a 4in 3jaw chuk on a S'bend lath i need toknow the answer tonite so any1
can help tell me" (made up example), makes me much less likely to answer
this poster, even though I might have the answer they need. If it's too
much bother to organise your own thoughts in an easy to understand way,
then it's too much bother for me to give you answers you might need.

Insulting top posters needlessly isn't productive. One thing to remember...
on usenet you guys have no rank to pull!

George Willer


You are right in that we can't force anyone to do anything on Usenet
(years of reading news.admin.net-abuse.email and
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet has taught me that). But I have learnt that
civil, considered, concise postings with good grammar and punctuation
will win respect, even from the people who know without a shadow of a
doubt that you are wrong and will always be wrong.

In Usenet, the best you can do is to killfile someone you don't want to
see postings from. If I killfile someone, I'll not announce it - they
will disappear from my list of articles, sometimes to be seen again when
my kill filter entry for them expires, sometimes never. If I reply to
you then I think you have written something worth responding to - if I
think you have nothing worthwhile to say and are likely to have nothing
to say in the future then you will be killfiled. (Obviously George, you
must have something I thought valuable to reply to.) If someone wants to
get in my killfile, that's fine - it can accommodate as many people,
subjects, NNTP-Posting-Hosts, or any other criterion that are needed to
filter someone out. That's not the issue - the issue is about
communication and who has to do the 'hard work'. I think many posters
have very worthwhile things to say, I just disagree that they are doing
it in the most effective manner.

Bill Lee

"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
k.net...
Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:

While I normally bottom post, I'm suggesting that John & George have a
case.
One reason I suggest they do is that when I click on a post to respond,
I
find my cursor at the top of the post, ready to accept my response.
Why
would it be there if that isn't where I should be typing?

Still, aside from this particular post, you'll find my responses at the
end------with the unnecessary information typically clipped.

Harold

Thats strange to me because my reader puts the cursor at the bottom and
I have to back up delete all the unnecessary garbage.
Different readers I guess.
...lew...

Likely so------as I'm discovering. To me, what I have surely must be what
everyone else has, right? g

I'm what could easily be considered computer illiterate. I've used only the
computer that sits in front of me, so I'm not familiar with anything but
Windows Me and Outlook Express. At my age, I'm damned proud that I'm able
to use one at all.

Top post or bottom post, makes no difference to me, but it sure as hell
would be a kindness for folks to clip that which is not important when
replying. Some replies are nothing short of a waste of time----doing
nothing more than re-quoting that which has already been re-quoted.
Sigh.

One of the biggest offenders is our good friend, Gunner. Still, it's
better to have to wade through the endless quotes than to not hear from him
at all.

Harold

"John" wrote in message
...
Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:

snip--

Secluded? View? Wooded? Logged? State your choices so I don't drive
you
nuts with the wrong package.

Harold

Sam wants a piece with a little geothermal activity. G but not too
much to shake the house.

John

Hey, we're not all that far from St. Helens. If he wants that kind of
activity, could be he won't need a heat source, just hook up to the crater.
The seismic activity has remained below a cat 3 for months now. Sort of
like rocking the cradle. g

Harold

"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message
...

"John" wrote in message
...
Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:

"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message
...

snip----

Sam wants a piece with a little geothermal activity. G but not too
much to shake the house.


An 18" dia penstock and ~180 ft of head would probly do just about
everything I'm lookin for....

SVL


With lines that run to my place? Should have enough 3 phase to go around.

Harold

In article ,
Barney-Killer wrote:

For what it's worth, I prefer top-posting.
If I'm following a thread of interest closely enough (and if I wasn't
interested, I just wouldn't follow it at all....), I don't have any
problem keeping context with top-postings.

And if you're not following closely enough do you prefer inline posting?
I note that you are using Forte's Agent to read your newsgroups: it does
a great job of threading articles, but it still can't help you if an
article has not propagated to your news server yet the reply to it
already has. How then do you keep track of context? Could you allocate
the colour of quoted text to another colour than the default blue? I
have my quoted text showing as a mid-grey colour (new text is black) so
it is instantly obvious about what is old and what is new text, yet
still very readable. Either way, both you and I don't have to read the
quoted text, but can read the reply and the quoted text is right there
with the reply to give it context.

I tend to graze in newsgroups, since I find that the Subject lines are
often misleading, or thread drift has made them no longer relevant. As a
result, I don't keep a lot in my head regarding individual threads and
who said what last week, or yesterday.

What really burns my a$$ is having to scroll down thru three pages of
quoted crap to see a response that is only three words long, and
totally irrelevant.

I 'm more liable to
killfile people who bottom post, especially when they don't have
enough sense to TRIM THE QUOTED CRAP to just the "needed" length.

I don't think you'll have any disagreement from any of us that reading
three pages of crap just to post a one line or phrase comment is the
worst possible thing, worse than quoting nothing at all. It certainly is
the thing that will have me killfile someone faster than anything else
(except maybe cascades).

Let's get this straw man out of the way: I don't know of anyone
advocating full quoting with bottom posting. None. The only alternative
of top posting is not bottom posting, it's inline posting with trimming
and paraphrasing. This is not an argument of "Top Posting, Bottom
Posting" - this is a false dichotomy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy. The fact that a reply
may come at the end of all of the quoted text should be a coincidence,
not an ideal. If Bottom Posting after full quoted text really is
objectionable then the desired alternative is not Top Posting.

Balls! If it's about communication, then the reply should come first.
BK

If the reply to an article is "Yes" then how do you know what that reply
was all about, unless you know context? Not everyone reads the
newsgroups often enough or pays close attention enough to the threads so
that they automatically understand context based on just a reply. Great
for you if you can, but if you post you should consider all the readers
(or potential readers) that may not. Sometimes it's their newsreaders
that prevent the communication of context that you have. Inline reply
with trimmed and paraphrased text will give them that context.

Bill Lee

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

"John" wrote in message
...
Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:

snip--

Secluded? View? Wooded? Logged? State your choices so I don't
drive
you
nuts with the wrong package.

Harold

Sam wants a piece with a little geothermal activity. G but not too
much to shake the house.

John

Hey, we're not all that far from St. Helens. If he wants that kind of
activity, could be he won't need a heat source, just hook up to the
crater.
The seismic activity has remained below a cat 3 for months now. Sort of
like rocking the cradle. g


Not quite, but IIRC you have hydronics heating the shop, fossil fueled--( I
know I keep saying it, but one a these days we WILL get together )...

===

That mountain really IS a trip though...I remember when she first blew, I
was in my early 20's or so.....like WTF is this crap???

Dry Snow???

g

===

In the meantime, suggest maybe start looking for places in which to bury
poly pipe, appx ~350 feet of trenching per ton of capacity, bury the loops~5
feet deep...fossil fuels probly arent gonna get much cheaper, and what with
local electric rates likely being much less dependant upon the world
economy....

--

SVL

In article Rt6mf.1184$Ev.61@fed1read06,
"SteveB" wrote:

Not much to do, ey? Got too much time on your hands? Got a sad empty life?

Great. An Ad hominem attack. Maybe it's an attempt at humour for my
analysis of your posting:

I find that there is so much BS that the whole conversation can be
clipped, and just a reply inserted.

As in this case, is there anyone out
there who doesn't know what I'm saying,
or what I'm responding to?
I didn't think so.

I didn't know what you were referring to - since this subject thread had
already devolved into three different threads regarding the original
complaint about a poster's property, someone else's restored John Deere
tractor, and top posting. Without context, you can guess that SteveB
didn't mean that the original poster or the John Deere restorer's posts
are 'BS', but can you be sure?

(top posted for your convenience)

steve ;-)

Hmmm, I trying to decide if the smiley wink is meant to tell me that he
is trying to be funny as well as taunting, or whether it is meant to
moderate the 'Nyah, nyah, nyah - you can't stop me' taunt in parenthesis.

Without the many cues of intonation of voice and subtle nuances of
emphasis in body language, we only have someone's words to evaluate our
impression of someone else. Improperly chosen words, or words entirely
lacking do not help this impression. All we have on Usenet is our words
and by this we will be known. I have to say that I can agree to disagree
with your top posting/inline posting, but the ad hominem attack does not
give me a stellar impression of SteveB.

Bill Lee

"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message
...
snip-----

In the meantime, suggest maybe start looking for places in which to bury
poly pipe, appx ~350 feet of trenching per ton of capacity, bury the
loops~5
feet deep...fossil fuels probly arent gonna get much cheaper, and what
with
local electric rates likely being much less dependant upon the world
economy....
SVL


Yep! Love the heating system, hate the oil and cost. Talked to a
distributor today and was quoted $2.26/gallon, plus sales tax. With crude
on the rise once again, can't see it getting much lower. I'm giving
serious consideration to a supplemental wood or coal fired boiler that works
in conjunction with the oil boiler. Both would run, but the oil fired
boiler would just make up that which the supplemental boiler couldn't
provide. I'd have to look at my time as a freebie, otherwise it's still
not a bargain. I'm not convinced I want to start trenching and installing
yet more equipment, although I can't rule it out. One thing sure, over
$2/gallon takes the shine right out of heating with oil, if there ever was a
shine. When we first filled the 1,000 gallon tank it sure looked like there
was, though. Paid $0.72/gal, plus sales tax. We use maybe 800
gallons/year, but it will be more when we start heating the house (same
boiler).

H

wrote in message
oups.com...

How successful you are is going to depend a lot on how your property is
zoned.


Unzoned property.....this particular County being one of the few real
stragglers when it comes to incorporating the comprehensive land use
planning statutes that were mandated near to two decades ago.


In my area a lot of properties 5 acres were rezoned from agricultural
to country residential. That brought them into a bunch of regulations
concerning equipment and refuse. In short everything needs to be in a
building or in some cases a fenced area that blocks the view from the
road or other houses. Same rule applies to commercial vehicles parked
in residential area.


I logged.....left bunches of the harvestable species, and with replantation
there's well over the minimum requirements left for retaining status, never
bothered with changing useage to residential use. Costs money to do so and
tax rates are higher.


If your area is being built up as residential you might be best off by
building a fenced area adjacent to your shop. Often if its not visible
from the road or other houses the required regulations are being met. A
fence may also be cheaper than a court case.


Mountainous terrain...not possible without 25 ft high fencing, sadly...



Be business like in your communications. If you annoy someone
sufficiently they have many perfectly legal ways to make your life
difficult.



"Subject 'abandoned truck with no engine' moved--replaced with newly
abandoned truck that still has engine"...

--

SVL

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message
...
snip-----

In the meantime, suggest maybe start looking for places in which to bury
poly pipe, appx ~350 feet of trenching per ton of capacity, bury the
loops~5
feet deep...fossil fuels probly arent gonna get much cheaper, and what
with
local electric rates likely being much less dependant upon the world
economy....
SVL


Yep! Love the heating system, hate the oil and cost. Talked to a
distributor today and was quoted $2.26/gallon, plus sales tax. With
crude
on the rise once again, can't see it getting much lower. I'm giving
serious consideration to a supplemental wood or coal fired boiler that
works
in conjunction with the oil boiler. Both would run, but the oil fired
boiler would just make up that which the supplemental boiler couldn't
provide. I'd have to look at my time as a freebie, otherwise it's still
not a bargain. I'm not convinced I want to start trenching and
installing
yet more equipment, although I can't rule it out. One thing sure, over
$2/gallon takes the shine right out of heating with oil, if there ever was
a
shine. When we first filled the 1,000 gallon tank it sure looked like
there
was, though. Paid $0.72/gal, plus sales tax. We use maybe 800
gallons/year, but it will be more when we start heating the house (same
boiler).


Harold,

Ive taken this private, since it's just mainly become just a conversation
between me and you.

You have mail, but it's stuck in my outbox presently--some kinda socket
error.

Cheers,

--

SVL

"Bill Lee" wrote in message
.
...
snip-----

. All we have on Usenet is our words
and by this we will be known. I have to say that I can agree to disagree
with your top posting/inline posting, but the ad hominem attack does not
give me a stellar impression of SteveB.

Bill Lee

That's been going around of late. He now enjoys a place in my killfile,
thanks to his inability to discern right from wrong. I can't help but
think he'll quietly be placed in yours.

Harold

"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message
news:yPmdnVaqJaZisQTenZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
snip----

You have mail, but it's stuck in my outbox presently--some kinda socket
error.

Cheers,

--

SVL

Got it!

H

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message
news:yPmdnVaqJaZisQTenZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
snip----

You have mail, but it's stuck in my outbox presently--some kinda socket
error.

Cheers,

--

SVL

Got it!


Very well, now probly its time to assimilate some a the data.

--

SVL

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 22:43:14 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm,
Barney-Killer quickly quoth:

For what it's worth, I prefer top-posting.

Zero. Zip. Nada. ALL your posts on RCM (4) have been to OT threads
anyway.


If I'm following a thread of interest closely enough (and if I wasn't
interested, I just wouldn't follow it at all....), I don't have any
problem keeping context with top-postings.

(see sig)


What really burns my a$$ is having to scroll down thru three pages of
quoted crap to see a response that is only three words long, and
totally irrelevant.

Agreed.


So top-post, or bottom post as you prefer. I 'm more liable to
killfile people who bottom post, especially when they don't have
enough sense to TRIM THE QUOTED CRAP to just the "needed" length.

Trim and interstitially reply. Posts then look like FAQs and are
much more readable to everyone.


On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 21:49:59 -0500, "George Willer"
wrote:

Larry and Bill,

You both are right. Your opinions are predicated on the willingness of
folks to delete everything not necessary to keep the new post in context.
Here in the real world that isn't the case and for that reason I'm sure many
of us will prefer the new posts at the top. If you are having problems with
context it should be you to do the simple scrolling, enough to establish
context and no more.

Insulting top posters needlessly isn't productive. One thing to remember...
on usenet you guys have no rank to pull!

Needlessly? Hah! As to rank, yes we do. We can plonk all your sorry
top-posting asses (as I did you awhile ago) and not have to put up
with it.


--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?

Lew Hartswick wrote:
Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:

While I normally bottom post, I'm suggesting that John & George have a
case.
One reason I suggest they do is that when I click on a post to respond, I
find my cursor at the top of the post, ready to accept my response. Why
would it be there if that isn't where I should be typing?

Still, aside from this particular post, you'll find my responses at the
end------with the unnecessary information typically clipped.

Harold


Thats strange to me because my reader puts the cursor at the bottom and
I have to back up delete all the unnecessary garbage.
Different readers I guess.
...lew...

That is an option in Thunderbird

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:12:57 +1100, with neither quill nor qualm, Bill
Lee quickly quoth:

These are real questions: I am interested in your responses. Like I said
in my longer posting: I top post in some email messages, because it is
appropriate there.

That's a bad habit to get into, Bill. I hate top-posting wherever and
whenever. People who do it are almost always just too lazy to snip,
and when people don't have enough compassion for the reader of their
message, the reader shouldn't have enough compassion to spend the
extra time to figure out what the top-poster meant to impart. (You
agreed with me later in your post, which I snipped.)


I post inline replies in Usenet because it is appropriate here.

Inline = interstitial. It's the only logical method for multiple
statements of reply.


I notice that you (Larry) are using Outlook Express - I don't have that

No, I'm using a purchased copy of Fortè Agent. OE is used only for
email.


You are right in that we can't force anyone to do anything on Usenet
(years of reading news.admin.net-abuse.email and
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet has taught me that). But I have learnt that
civil, considered, concise postings with good grammar and punctuation
will win respect, even from the people who know without a shadow of a
doubt that you are wrong and will always be wrong.
--snip--
That's not the issue - the issue is about
communication and who has to do the 'hard work'. I think many posters
have very worthwhile things to say, I just disagree that they are doing
it in the most effective manner.

Well stated, Bill.


--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?

Bill,

Thank you for your lengthy reply outlining why you are convinced your view
is the right one. I'm sure you may consider why others of equal rank to you
are convinced that top posting is better. Your arguments are not
convincing.

I'll quote your latest epistle and insert my thoughts where appropriate.

"Bill Lee" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"George Willer" wrote:

Your opinions are predicated on the willingness of
folks to delete everything not necessary to keep the new post in context.

For this reason I spent my time to write that long posting - to give the
reasons why people *should*

(according to Bill and Larry)

take that time to delete extraneous text in
their posting before clicking on the button that says "Post". It's the
same way that I would try to get everyone to travel in one of two
opposing streams on a crowded sidewalk. You seem to be saying that
because not all people will join either of those streams then it is OK
for you to follow their example, even if you know this to be less
efficient.

(I don't share your certainty that your way is more efficient, given the
evolution that has happened in usenet habits recently)

I'm trying to say that the equivalent of a top posting rule
is the arrows and line markings painted on the sidewalk. Sure you (and
others) can ignore it, but we get better results if people abide by
them.

(There are times when the posted rules no longer apply. You're trying to
enforce an old rule that has outlived its' time. Your example is like
insisting driving driving on the right side is always the correct way since
there are places, even here in the USA where it is the wrong side.)

For Usenet there is RFC 1855 which describes how people should
post to try to ensure that you get the most out of other people's
postings and others get the most out of yours. Have things changed since
1995 when the RPC was written so that it is no longer relevant?

( Times have certainly changed. What percentage of posters do you imagine
have ever even heard of that arcane rule you quote? Of those, what
percentage do you imagine agree with it? How many have been arrested for
violating it?)

Here in the real world that isn't the case and for that reason I'm sure
many
of us will prefer the new posts at the top.

Do you actually prefer new material added to the top, or can't you be
bothered with trimming out the non-relevant material that you are
replying to or paraphrasing what the thread is about?

(Yes, I and I'm sure many others DO PREFER to see replies posted at the
top.)

Do you just read a
few threads in one newsgroup, or do you participate in a number of
newsgroups?

(Yes, I spend a lot of time on the internet. On usenet I read only those
threads that interest me so I have time to spend on the mail lists and large
bulletin boards that I moderate. That's why I object to wasting time
scrolling to find what someone has to say when it could be politely added to
the top.)

The reason that I ask is that I read so many threads a day
that it is impossible to remember who said exactly what without
appropriate quoting. Would you prefer everyone just posted replies
without context?

(certainly not! That's when I scroll, to go deep enough to find context if
I don't remember it from the post being replied to.)

Does your newsreader thread articles so that "just
replies" is viable on your computer?

These are real questions: I am interested in your responses. Like I said
in my longer posting: I top post in some email messages, because it is
appropriate there. I post inline replies in Usenet because it is
appropriate here.

When I read a newsgroup, the message disappears from my list of articles
after being read and the newsgroup window is closed, so I usually can't
see articles read yesterday or last week (nor would I want them still
listed). Thus I lose context of your reply if you just put your reply as
the only content of a reply.

(I'm using IE, so mine works the same way. On this point we agree. That's
why I think top posting is better than bottom posting.)

If the article you are replying to has not
yet reached my Usenet server, but your reply has then I have no idea of
what you are replying to unless you dump the original in your reply.
Even then I'm not sure, since you may have edited out relevant sections
of that posting that provide a complete record of the original poster.
Since the posting is yet to come, then I'll have to read the original
later when it does arrive at my server.

I notice that you (Larry) are using Outlook Express - I don't have that
so I fired up a copy of Entourage (Mac) to see what the experience of
reading Usenet was like "the Microsoft Way". If your Outlook Express is
like Entourage, then you have my sympathy. I note that it does, by
default, put the cursor at the top of your reply by default, so I can
understand why a newcomer to Usenet might think that it operates the
same way that email does (since it is presented that way).


If you are having problems with
context it should be you to do the simple scrolling, enough to establish
context and no more.

As I said, I think it is the responsibility of a poster to minimise the
work that their intended reader should go through to understand their
message in the right context. If you say that I should start scrolling
through an entire message to see how your reply relates to the previous
one, then that is sometimes just too hard to bother with and fraught
with misinterpretation. What if I think the sentence or point that you
are making is in response to a different part of the message that you
are responding to? If there are two questions posed in an article, and
you answered one of them, is someone able to tell from your reply which
one you've responded to?

(I'm saying it is irresponsible to expect every reader to scroll through
EVERY post all the way to the bottom to find new content.)

Dumping someone else's quoted posting is (to me) lazy and implies that
someone have spent little time on this posting, and thus a greater
chance that their arguments or information is not as well thought out as
it could be. Just like a posting full of language like, "any1 can u use
a 4in 3jaw chuk on a S'bend lath i need toknow the answer tonite so any1
can help tell me" (made up example), makes me much less likely to answer
this poster, even though I might have the answer they need. If it's too
much bother to organise your own thoughts in an easy to understand way,
then it's too much bother for me to give you answers you might need.

(WOW! Now you've found something we can celebrate! I feel strongly that
the quality of a poster's care used in preparing a post reflects how much
consideration should be given their effort. Poorly written posts deserve
the trash can. The authors often deserve plonking.)


Insulting top posters needlessly isn't productive. One thing to
remember...
on usenet you guys have no rank to pull!

George Willer


You are right in that we can't force anyone to do anything on Usenet
(years of reading news.admin.net-abuse.email and
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet has taught me that). But I have learnt that
civil, considered, concise postings with good grammar and punctuation
will win respect, even from the people who know without a shadow of a
doubt that you are wrong and will always be wrong.

(I'm pleased we have this common ground to agree on. I tend to be a little
grumpy when a post of mine is dismissed by some ruffian who is barely
literate issues a proclamation that I'm wrong without even an attempt to
understand what I've written. On rare occasion I'll reply in kind. I do
put effort into my writing. I was past 60 when I began to type and it is
still an effort. I don't have any advanced "education", but I began
learning and thinking 71 years ago. However, I'll still claim my EQUAL rank
on usenet as just another guy.)


In Usenet, the best you can do is to killfile someone you don't want to
see postings from. If I killfile someone, I'll not announce it - they
will disappear from my list of articles, sometimes to be seen again when
my kill filter entry for them expires, sometimes never. If I reply to
you then I think you have written something worth responding to - if I
think you have nothing worthwhile to say and are likely to have nothing
to say in the future then you will be killfiled. (Obviously George, you
must have something I thought valuable to reply to.) If someone wants to
get in my killfile, that's fine - it can accommodate as many people,
subjects, NNTP-Posting-Hosts, or any other criterion that are needed to
filter someone out. That's not the issue - the issue is about
communication and who has to do the 'hard work'. I think many posters
have very worthwhile things to say, I just disagree that they are doing
it in the most effective manner.

Bill Lee

Larry,

Just in case it's escaped your attention, we're equal in that respect too!

George Willer


Insulting top posters needlessly isn't productive. One thing to
remember...
on usenet you guys have no rank to pull!

Needlessly? Hah! As to rank, yes we do. We can plonk all your sorry
top-posting asses (as I did you awhile ago) and not have to put up
with it.


--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?

It ..... It ..... It ..... sob ..... snork ..... wheeze ......... blow
......... sniffle .......

It's just not FAIR. That everyone doesn't do everything just right.

boohoo .......... sob ............. snerk ...... OMIGAWD!

Steve

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 22:43:14 -0600, Barney-Killer wrote:


For what it's worth, I prefer top-posting.
If I'm following a thread of interest closely enough (and if I wasn't
interested, I just wouldn't follow it at all....), I don't have any
problem keeping context with top-postings.

OK, but I don't know who you're answering, without scrolling down. How
does that make your post make more sense?

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 21:49:59 -0500, "George Willer"
wrote:

Oh, it's _George's_ post you're answering. Now, let me read it. Then I
can scroll way back to the top, and see what you meant, with context.

Or, I could just not bother. Making your messages harder to understand
is rarely a good way to communicate, in my opinion.

Dave Hinz

"Dave Hinz" wrote

Or, I could just not bother. Making your messages harder to understand
is rarely a good way to communicate, in my opinion.

Dave Hinz


Was it Yogi or Lasorda that said, "You can see a lot by observing."

Steve

Ok, it's obvious we are NOT going to get along.
I suggest we split into two groups

1. rec.crafts.metalworking.topposting idiots

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 22:43:14 -0600, Barney-Killer wrote:


For what it's worth, I prefer top-posting.
If I'm following a thread of interest closely enough (and if I wasn't
interested, I just wouldn't follow it at all....), I don't have any
problem keeping context with top-postings.


OK, but I don't know who you're answering, without scrolling down. How
does that make your post make more sense?


On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 21:49:59 -0500, "George Willer"
wrote:


Oh, it's _George's_ post you're answering. Now, let me read it. Then I
can scroll way back to the top, and see what you meant, with context.

Or, I could just not bother. Making your messages harder to understand
is rarely a good way to communicate, in my opinion.

Dave Hinz

and

2. rec.crafts.metalworking.bottomposting neanderthals.

Whattaya think?

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 13:37:38 -0600, Rex B wrote:

2. rec.crafts.metalworking.bottomposting neanderthals.

Whattaya think?

I think your goals don't include writing in such a way that others can
easily follow, or follow-up, to your posts.

plonk

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 05:57:12 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 22:43:14 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm,
Barney-Killer quickly quoth:

For what it's worth, I prefer top-posting.

Zero. Zip. Nada. ALL your posts on RCM (4) have been to OT threads
anyway.


So who the **** cares? I didn't realize YOUR life was so lame that
you would even bother to count my posts, or make note of how I
posted...


Needlessly? Hah! As to rank, yes we do. We can plonk all your sorry
top-posting asses (as I did you awhile ago) and not have to put up
with it.


Beat ya to it asshole... P L O N K !!!!!

YEE HAW!! Another one bites the dust...





Ker-****ing-PLONK!



Bye Dave....




On 9 Dec 2005 19:40:51 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 13:37:38 -0600, Rex B wrote:

2. rec.crafts.metalworking.bottomposting neanderthals.

Whattaya think?

I think your goals don't include writing in such a way that others can
easily follow, or follow-up, to your posts.

plonk

"George Willer" wrote in message
...
snip-------

I do
put effort into my writing. snip---

I don't have any advanced "education", but I began
learning and thinking 71 years ago.

Looks like I'm in very good company.

Harold

Harold,

If we were closer I'm sure we could become very good friends!

George Willer

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

"George Willer" wrote in message
...
snip-------

I do
put effort into my writing. snip---

I don't have any advanced "education", but I began
learning and thinking 71 years ago.

Looks like I'm in very good company.

Harold

Absolutely!
When I first found out about Usenet... I watched & read for a long time
before I made my first post; and during that time I picked out what I liked
and didn't like about what the others were posting. Honestly, I thought
bottom-posters were retards.
I top-post all the time... and only here amongst the "net-nannies" has
it ever been mentioned. I think probably 90% of the snowmobile newsgroup
posts are top-posted... and everybody seems happy over there! LOL
On the other hand, I'm anxiously waiting for the day that I have nothing
better to worry about than how someone else composes their usenet posts.
Hahaha!
David


Do you actually prefer new material added to the top, or can't you be
bothered with trimming out the non-relevant material that you are
replying to or paraphrasing what the thread is about?

(Yes, I and I'm sure many others DO PREFER to see replies posted at the
top.)

"Rex B" wrote in message
...

Ok, it's obvious we are NOT going to get along.
I suggest we split into two groups

1. rec.crafts.metalworking.topposting idiots

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 22:43:14 -0600, Barney-Killer wrote:


For what it's worth, I prefer top-posting. If I'm following a thread of
interest closely enough (and if I wasn't
interested, I just wouldn't follow it at all....), I don't have any
problem keeping context with top-postings.


OK, but I don't know who you're answering, without scrolling down. How
does that make your post make more sense?


On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 21:49:59 -0500, "George Willer"
wrote:


Oh, it's _George's_ post you're answering. Now, let me read it. Then I
can scroll way back to the top, and see what you meant, with context.

Or, I could just not bother. Making your messages harder to understand
is rarely a good way to communicate, in my opinion. Dave Hinz

and

2. rec.crafts.metalworking.bottomposting neanderthals.

Whattaya think?

You missed the third group. Those with over a room temperature IQ that can
keep up with whatever is going on, top or bottom posted.

Just a thought, and you asked for it.

Steve

"George Willer" wrote in message
...
Harold,

If we were closer I'm sure we could become very good friends!

George Willer


I'm sure I'd welcome the opportunity. Like you, I have no formal
education, but I feel I am a worthy individual that has extensive life
experiences that are of interest to others, and am able to convey, in some
meaningful way, bits of information that are of benefit to those that have
an interest in hearing what I have to say. Like you, I started learning
when I was born. Man, 66 years ago. Where does time go?

Did I mention I'm very opinionated? g

Harold