"2fatty" wrote in message
...

"BobS" wrote in message
...

What started this, was a snide remark from a supposedly fellow woodworker
who obviously enjoys making comments like that to purposely provoke a
response. He got one and I think he is now on the same plane as the
village idiot that posted the spam.


You're talking about yourself here right?


I'll withdraw that. My apologies.

Holy, Moley, Guys!

I'm counting 42 posts here. More to come?

Bobby

"Bobby" wrote in message
oups.com...
Holy, Moley, Guys!

I'm counting 42 posts here. More to come?

Bobby


Nah.....they're just a bunch o' wimps.... I didn't even get to break a
sweat. Packing it up fer the day and we'll try a little trolling tomorrow
to see who we can reel in......;-)

Bob S.

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 18:03:42 GMT, "BobS" wrote:

And I'll bet you blame everything on the stars not lining up.

What started this, was a snide remark from a supposedly fellow woodworker
who obviously enjoys making comments like that to purposely provoke a
response. He got one and I think he is now on the same plane as the village
idiot that posted the spam.

Nope

And you reacted to said snide comment.

One suggestion be a duck.

Mark
(sixoneeight) = 618

"Markem" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 18:03:42 GMT, "BobS" wrote:

And I'll bet you blame everything on the stars not lining up.

What started this, was a snide remark from a supposedly fellow woodworker
who obviously enjoys making comments like that to purposely provoke a
response. He got one and I think he is now on the same plane as the
village
idiot that posted the spam.

Nope

And you reacted to said snide comment.

One suggestion be a duck.

Mark
(sixoneeight) = 618

Ya know Mark, I spent 20 years defending these village idiots. Enough - no
more cheek-turning or putting up with their bull****.

In article ,
BobS wrote:
...snipped...
Your reference to RFC1036 is correct but... and I'll quote....

"This document defines the standard format for the interchange of
network News messages among USENET hosts. It updates and replaces
RFC-850, reflecting version B2.11 of the News program. This memo is
distributed as an RFC to make this information easily accessible to
the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited."

Please note that it states "It does not specify an Internet standard." also
and therefore is ambiguous since the RFC starts out with "Standard for
Interchange of USENET Messages" - very confusing but your point is well
taken. Simply said, not all newsreaders and servers will stack and rack the
threads of a message in the same manner. I will never again rename a
specific thread and make a post.....;-)

Bob S.




Yes it is ambiguous. Perhaps one reason it has the disclaimer about
being an internet standard is that usenet predates the internet, in
the form that we know it today, anyway.

--

Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:26:21 GMT, "BobS" wrote:

Ya know Mark, I spent 20 years defending these village idiots. Enough - no
mo

Have fun

Mark
(sixoneeight) = 618

wrote in message
...
In article ,
BobS wrote:
...snipped...
Your reference to RFC1036 is correct but... and I'll quote....

"This document defines the standard format for the interchange of
network News messages among USENET hosts. It updates and replaces
RFC-850, reflecting version B2.11 of the News program. This memo is
distributed as an RFC to make this information easily accessible to
the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited."

Please note that it states "It does not specify an Internet standard."
also
and therefore is ambiguous since the RFC starts out with "Standard for
Interchange of USENET Messages" - very confusing but your point is well
taken. Simply said, not all newsreaders and servers will stack and rack
the
threads of a message in the same manner. I will never again rename a
specific thread and make a post.....;-)

Bob S.




Yes it is ambiguous. Perhaps one reason it has the disclaimer about
being an internet standard is that usenet predates the internet, in
the form that we know it today, anyway.

--

Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland


Larry,

You have a good memory. Back around 1966 I worked on the world's largest
computer systems at the time (SAGE) and we used a form of email then between
centers and radar sites that was unique to SAGE (Semi-Automatic Ground
Environment). Then about '69, I moved over to Autodin (Automatic Digital
Network) where email (as we know it) really took off. Course it was all text
messaging back then - and get this - all top-posting too! The screens were
for the most part, not screen's but teletype machines using Baudot 5 bit
code. While working at the underground in Omaha (SAC Command Center) we
jerry-rigged an IBM electric typewriter to replace the teletype. About 30
days later, IBM had a working Selectric on the SACC's system (SAC Command
and Control).

I get a chuckle out of some of the comments made here about not knowing
anything of USENET......;-)

Thanks for the trip down memory lane....

Bob S.

See, a lot of us still do it right.

"BobS" wrote in message
...

Course it was all text
messaging back then - and get this - all top-posting too!

"CW" writes:
See, a lot of us still do it right.

Top posting is proper when (1) you're talking *about* the referenced
text, but not *in reply to* it, and (2) when the reader is blind and
using a screen reader, which starts at the top. Yes, they have to
hear the whole thread, over and over again, just to hear the new part
at the bottom. At least, that was what I used to hear from them.
Hopefully their software is smart enough to cope with that problem
now.

Bottom posting is proper when the result reads like a conversation in
a book.

While bottom posting is the more common format, it only works when you
trim the included message. It's amazing how many people just copy the
whole huge message and only add a tiny bit. It used to be that the
news servers would reject messages that had more referenced text than
new text. Sigh, those were the days.

When done right, you end up with interleaved text - each part of the
original message you're replying to (trimmed to the minimum
necessary), has your reply under it, followed by the next bit of the
original message, then your reply to that, etc; and most of the post
is new text.

That is the major problem. I get very tired of having to scroll down half a
page or more to read a response. I already know what has been previously
said, and if I don't, I can look. Bottom posting forces me to look at
useless information and actively skip past it. It is not at all unusual to
have a full page of text with a one line reply underneath it. It is far
easier to have software that eliminates the problem then try to train
everyone to become a skilled editor, or to give a crap. Top posting is
slowly taking over, for the better.

"DJ Delorie" wrote in message
...

While bottom posting is the more common format, it only works when you
trim the included message.

"CW" wrote in message
ink.net...
That is the major problem. I get very tired of having to scroll down half
a
page or more to read a response. I already know what has been previously
said, and if I don't, I can look. Bottom posting forces me to look at
useless information and actively skip past it. It is not at all unusual to
have a full page of text with a one line reply underneath it. It is far
easier to have software that eliminates the problem then try to train
everyone to become a skilled editor, or to give a crap. Top posting is
slowly taking over, for the better.

It's especially useful when one does a newsgroup archive search and finds a
long response. I especially love starting and the bottom and reading
backwards...it's so efficient. Truth be told, the biggest problem isn't
bottom- or top-posting, it's that everyone doesn't do the same thing. So,
we end up with the worst case, messages that combine both.

todd

On 4/30/2006 1:29 AM CW mumbled something about the following:
That is the major problem. I get very tired of having to scroll down half a
page or more to read a response. I already know what has been previously
said, and if I don't, I can look. Bottom posting forces me to look at
useless information and actively skip past it. It is not at all unusual to
have a full page of text with a one line reply underneath it. It is far
easier to have software that eliminates the problem then try to train
everyone to become a skilled editor, or to give a crap. Top posting is
slowly taking over, for the better.

"DJ Delorie" wrote in message
...
While bottom posting is the more common format, it only works when you
trim the included message.



Here's where you need a PROPER news reader that compresses all the
replied to text to just one line. I don't have to scroll through much
of anything.

The following is what I saw of the previous message that was properly
BOTTOM posted

-------------------
"CW" writes:
+ See, a lot of us still do it right.

Top posting is proper when (1) you're talking *about* the referenced
text, but not *in reply to* it, and (2) when the reader is blind and
[ rest snipped for brevity ]
----------------------

With a proper newsreader configured properly (OE is not a proper news
reader and is barely a proper email client), one doesn't have to scroll
through the message. If you need a reference to what was being replied,
you expand the compressed section (where the + is).

Part of the reason for bottom posting is because USENET doesn't
guarantee delivery of messages and may deliver messages in the wrong
order. Let's say for example, my news server didn't get your earlier
message, but it got DJ's reply. The logical flow of the message would
make sense (since I never saw the original message). Reading from the
bottom doesn't, especially if my news server missed SEVERAL messages in
the thread before I got to read one.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

Odinn writes:
The following is what I saw of the previous message that was properly
BOTTOM posted

Try a different example. I only included that one line when I
replied, so *everyone* saw that ;-)