Despite multiple coats and letting the stain sink in as long as (or even
sometimes longer than) recommended on the can, my stain never seems to
get nearly as dark as shown on the can or as shown in the store samples.

- I have found this both with multiple different Minwax oil stains and
with Rockler gel stains. The stain never gets nearly as dark, dense,
rich as shonw in the samples.

- For me this is true both for pine and (red) oak -- which are the types
of wood shown for example in the Minwax samples.

- It happens both on unsanded S4S wood and on wood sanded to 200 grit

- Also it happens whether or not I use a pre-stain wood conditioner.

- Finally it happens even with multiple coates (4+), even when using
very generous applications, even when kept on longer than recommended,
and even if I don't wipe it off aggresively at the end.

The only areas that stain as dark as (or darker than) the samples are
end grain.

What could I possibly be doing wrong?

On Mar 5, 1:00*pm, blueman wrote:
Despite multiple coats and letting the stain sink in as long as (or even
sometimes longer than) recommended on the can, my stain never seems to
get nearly as dark as shown on the can or as shown in the store samples.

- I have found this both with multiple different Minwax oil stains and
* *with Rockler gel stains. The stain never gets nearly as dark, dense,
* *rich as shonw in the samples.

- For me this is true both for pine and (red) oak -- which are the types
* of wood shown for example in the Minwax samples.

- It happens both on unsanded S4S wood and on wood sanded to 200 grit

- Also it happens whether or not I use a pre-stain wood conditioner.

- Finally it happens even with multiple coates (4+), even when using
* very generous applications, even when kept on longer than recommended,
* and even if I don't wipe it off aggresively at the end.

The only areas that stain as dark as (or darker than) the samples are
end grain.

What could I possibly be doing wrong?

Try using a dye. There are water/alcohol soluble dyes available at
Woodcraft. Try TransTint (this is what I use).
The stains that you are using are made from pigments that don't
penetrate hard wood very well (large molecules). Dyes are much
smaller compounds (usually analine derivatives) that penetrate the
pours of hardwood much better.

Try it.

Yeah, this is really common. I think every woodworker goes through
this. Oils stains are just exactly like you state. You can get closer
to the store colors by not wiping off so cleanly and leaving a build
of color to dry. I'm sure that is what they do but it is not so
practicle or easy to achieve on a real project.

A few ideas.

1. Learn how to use Dyes. A very very different process but much more
predictable once you learn the tricks.
2. Try some water based stains. I find the General Finishes water
based stains to have a whole lot of grit and good color lay down. But
using water based requures the extra step of raising the grain.
3. Gel stains are oil stains that have some jellified nature and poly
included. These can be much more easily used as a coating where you
can leave a film to get the deep color you want.

One approach I use on oak (and others) is a standard oil stain on the
raw wood or tung oiled, then stained. Then I put down a thin coat of
shellac. Then I use a darker gel stain to fill the grain with nice
dark lines but not filled so they are flat. You can work the gel stain
with a real saturated rag and leave behind a film as dark as you like.
I actually use it to antique the look and leave lots more in the
corners. The gel stain has poly in it so it will dry and stay on the
surface better than doing the same leave behind with standard oil
stain.

You can then lacquer over or poly over or shellac over or wax over or
my fav lacquer then wax over or just leave it. I also sometimes use
black wax for even more antiquing sometimes.

On Mar 5, 10:00*am, blueman wrote:
Despite multiple coats and letting the stain sink in as long as (or even
sometimes longer than) recommended on the can, my stain never seems to
get nearly as dark as shown on the can or as shown in the store samples.

- I have found this both with multiple different Minwax oil stains and
* *with Rockler gel stains. The stain never gets nearly as dark, dense,
* *rich as shonw in the samples.

- For me this is true both for pine and (red) oak -- which are the types
* of wood shown for example in the Minwax samples.

- It happens both on unsanded S4S wood and on wood sanded to 200 grit

- Also it happens whether or not I use a pre-stain wood conditioner.

- Finally it happens even with multiple coates (4+), even when using
* very generous applications, even when kept on longer than recommended,
* and even if I don't wipe it off aggresively at the end.

The only areas that stain as dark as (or darker than) the samples are
end grain.

What could I possibly be doing wrong?

"blueman" wrote in message
...
Despite multiple coats and letting the stain sink in as long as (or even
sometimes longer than) recommended on the can, my stain never seems to
get nearly as dark as shown on the can or as shown in the store samples.

- I have found this both with multiple different Minwax oil stains and
with Rockler gel stains. The stain never gets nearly as dark, dense,
rich as shonw in the samples.

- For me this is true both for pine and (red) oak -- which are the types
of wood shown for example in the Minwax samples.

- It happens both on unsanded S4S wood and on wood sanded to 200 grit

- Also it happens whether or not I use a pre-stain wood conditioner.

- Finally it happens even with multiple coates (4+), even when using
very generous applications, even when kept on longer than recommended,
and even if I don't wipe it off aggresively at the end.

The only areas that stain as dark as (or darker than) the samples are
end grain.

What could I possibly be doing wrong?

You could, probably are over sanding. If you are going past 180 you may be
leaving little for the stain to soak into.

On 3/5/2010 10:56 AM SonomaProducts.com spake thus:

Yeah, this is really common. I think every woodworker goes through
this. Oils stains are just exactly like you state. You can get closer
to the store colors by not wiping off so cleanly and leaving a build
of color to dry. I'm sure that is what they do but it is not so
practicle or easy to achieve on a real project.

[snip]

So do you think you could ever learn to bottom-post, which is what, oh,
I don't know, 99.5% of the people here do when responding to messages?


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

blueman wrote in :

*snip*

The only areas that stain as dark as (or darker than) the samples are
end grain.

What could I possibly be doing wrong?

How old are the store samples? Most woods naturally change over time,
often darkening as they get older.

Puckdropper

--
Never teach your apprentice everything you know.

On Mar 5, 4:40*pm, Puckdropper puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:
blueman wrote :

*snip*

The only areas that stain as dark as (or darker than) the samples are
end grain.

What could I possibly be doing wrong?

How old are the store samples? *Most woods naturally change over time,
often darkening as they get older.

And at the same time, stain has a tendency to fade over time. Hmmmm.



Puckdropper

--
Never teach your apprentice everything you know.

On Mar 5, 12:20*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 3/5/2010 10:56 AM SonomaProducts.com spake thus:

Yeah, this is really common. I think every woodworker goes through
this. Oils stains are just exactly like you state. You can get closer
to the store colors by not wiping off so cleanly and leaving a build
of color to dry. I'm sure that is what they do but it is not so
practicle or easy to achieve on a real project.

[snip]

So do you think you could ever learn to bottom-post, which is what, oh,
I don't know, 99.5% of the people here do when responding to messages?

--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

I'll consider it.

"blueman" wrote in message
...
Despite multiple coats and letting the stain sink in as long as (or even
sometimes longer than) recommended on the can, my stain never seems to
get nearly as dark as shown on the can or as shown in the store samples.

- I have found this both with multiple different Minwax oil stains and
with Rockler gel stains. The stain never gets nearly as dark, dense,
rich as shonw in the samples.

- For me this is true both for pine and (red) oak -- which are the types
of wood shown for example in the Minwax samples.

- It happens both on unsanded S4S wood and on wood sanded to 200 grit

- Also it happens whether or not I use a pre-stain wood conditioner.

- Finally it happens even with multiple coates (4+), even when using
very generous applications, even when kept on longer than recommended,
and even if I don't wipe it off aggresively at the end.

The only areas that stain as dark as (or darker than) the samples are
end grain.

What could I possibly be doing wrong?

The two main reasons have both been mentioned.

Sanding to too fine a grit which doesn't allow the pigment any rough surface
to settle into.

However, given how long most store displays have been out, my $$ is on the
wood darkening over time, something all woods do, to greatly varying
degrees.

jc

"GarageWoodworks" wrote in message
...
On Mar 5, 4:40 pm, Puckdropper puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:
blueman wrote :

*snip*

The only areas that stain as dark as (or darker than) the samples are
end grain.

What could I possibly be doing wrong?

How old are the store samples? Most woods naturally change over time,
often darkening as they get older.

And at the same time, stain has a tendency to fade over time. Hmmmm.

I have not noticed that unless of course the piece is subject to fading due
to lighting conditions. I have been using a particular stain for 20 years
and it continues to match pieces done 20 years ago. In 1995 I built an
entertainment system for a customer and in 2007 had to modify it and add
drawers, the customer mentioned that it all looked like it was built at the
same time.

blueman wrote:

: What could I possibly be doing wrong?

Are you putting on a top clear coat (varnish, shellac, lacquer, etc.)?
Dyes (which, in spite of the syte/stain distinction, are in a lot of thing
labelled "stain") only show their true color and darkness once a topcoat
is applied. This is most extreme with aniline dyes, but it might be
happening in your case as well.

-- Andy Barss

So do you think you could ever learn to bottom-post, which is what, oh,
I don't know, 99.5% of the people here do when responding to messages?

Sheesh. You and Dave Bugg over in teh BBQ group should meet.

-Zz

Your sig line perfectly matches your inability to deal with trivialities.

Happily hanging out up here with Sonoma. How ya doin?

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
On 3/5/2010 10:56 AM SonomaProducts.com spake thus:

Yeah, this is really common. I think every woodworker goes through
this. Oils stains are just exactly like you state. You can get closer
to the store colors by not wiping off so cleanly and leaving a build
of color to dry. I'm sure that is what they do but it is not so
practicle or easy to achieve on a real project.

[snip]

So do you think you could ever learn to bottom-post, which is what, oh, I
don't know, 99.5% of the people here do when responding to messages?


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

On 3/5/2010 2:15 PM SonomaProducts.com spake thus:

On Mar 5, 12:20 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 3/5/2010 10:56 AM SonomaProducts.com spake thus:

Yeah, this is really common. I think every woodworker goes through
this. Oils stains are just exactly like you state. You can get closer
to the store colors by not wiping off so cleanly and leaving a build
of color to dry. I'm sure that is what they do but it is not so
practicle or easy to achieve on a real project.

[snip]

So do you think you could ever learn to bottom-post, which is what, oh,
I don't know, 99.5% of the people here do when responding to messages?

I'll consider it.

Thank you; that's very considerate of you.


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

On Mar 5, 6:48*pm, Zz Yzx wrote:
So do you think you could ever learn to bottom-post, which is what, oh,
I don't know, 99.5% of the people here do when responding to messages?

Sheesh. *You and Dave Bugg over in teh BBQ group should meet.

-Zz

NO ****!!!

I like your style Joe!

Some of us just like being on top I guess ;-D

K.

"Joe" wrote in message
...
Your sig line perfectly matches your inability to deal with trivialities.

Happily hanging out up here with Sonoma. How ya doin?

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
On 3/5/2010 10:56 AM SonomaProducts.com spake thus:

Yeah, this is really common. I think every woodworker goes through
this. Oils stains are just exactly like you state. You can get closer
to the store colors by not wiping off so cleanly and leaving a build
of color to dry. I'm sure that is what they do but it is not so
practicle or easy to achieve on a real project.

[snip]

So do you think you could ever learn to bottom-post, which is what, oh, I
don't know, 99.5% of the people here do when responding to messages?


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

blueman wrote:
Despite multiple coats and letting the stain sink in as long as (or even
sometimes longer than) recommended on the can, my stain never seems to
get nearly as dark as shown on the can or as shown in the store samples.

- I have found this both with multiple different Minwax oil stains and
with Rockler gel stains. The stain never gets nearly as dark, dense,
rich as shonw in the samples.

- For me this is true both for pine and (red) oak -- which are the types
of wood shown for example in the Minwax samples.

For the oak, try Watco Danish Oil, dark walnut. It will definitely
stain your oak dark. I built a kitchen out of white oak a long time ago
and
I was having a hard time getting it dark. Never had much of a problem
with pine however, and I really didn't like the Watco on pine. Really
good on Oak, both red and white.

--
Jack
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong
enough to take everything you have".
-- Thomas Jefferson
http://jbstein.com

Geez Kate you sound like fun...

IMHO Posting on bottom for someone else, is simply being submissive. Post
where you want.




"Kate" wrote in message
...
I like your style Joe!

Some of us just like being on top I guess ;-D

K.

"Leon" wrote in message
...
Geez Kate you sound like fun...

IMHO Posting on bottom for someone else, is simply being submissive. Post
where you want.
============

LMAO Leon!
I'm a PITA, I swear.
You're alright in my book!
I post all over the place. It makes those that are more anal retentive than
I am absolutely crazy.

K.


"Kate" wrote in message
...
I like your style Joe!

Some of us just like being on top I guess ;-D

K.

On 3/6/2010 11:13 AM Kate spake thus:

"Leon" wrote in message
...
Geez Kate you sound like fun...

IMHO Posting on bottom for someone else, is simply being submissive. Post
where you want.
============

LMAO Leon!
I'm a PITA, I swear.
You're alright in my book!
I post all over the place. It makes those that are more anal retentive than
I am absolutely crazy.

No, it just makes you look like an idiot.

But please do whatever you want.


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

On 3/6/2010 1:33 PM Lew Hodgett spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote:

No, it just makes you look like an idiot.

But please do whatever you want.

Vicious personal attack time, huh.

Don't think you want to go there.

*That's* a vicious attack???? I think someone's insult-o-meter needs
recalibration, and I don't think it's mine ...


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
On 3/6/2010 11:13 AM Kate spake thus:

"Leon" wrote in message
...
Geez Kate you sound like fun...

IMHO Posting on bottom for someone else, is simply being submissive.
Post
where you want.
============

LMAO Leon!
I'm a PITA, I swear.
You're alright in my book!
I post all over the place. It makes those that are more anal retentive
than I am absolutely crazy.

No, it just makes you look like an idiot.

But please do whatever you want.

I think the idiot is the one that needs to look through all the mess to get
to the reply. Basically the one that cannot remember what he just read in
the immediate above post. Why reread each time if you have any kind of
memory. Why not for those that can keep up do we need to have the response
at the bottom?

So to in response to your probable response, If you have not read the whole
thread or your computer does not show the previous response, read the
statement below the top posted response.

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 3/6/2010 11:13 AM Kate spake thus:

LMAO Leon!
I'm a PITA, I swear.
You're alright in my book!
I post all over the place. It makes those that are more anal retentive
than I am absolutely crazy.

No, it just makes you look like an idiot.

Sometimes top posting is OK, sometimes bottom posting, and sometimes
interlaced is tits. Editing out the garbage is always correct.
Thinking there is one correct way all the time is lame, and could make
you look like an idiot. Failure to adequately edit your message using
common sense always denotes idiocy or slothfulness, or both.

--
Jack
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong
enough to take everything you have".
-- Thomas Jefferson
http://jbstein.com

On 3/7/2010 9:08 AM Jack Stein spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 3/6/2010 11:13 AM Kate spake thus:

LMAO Leon!
I'm a PITA, I swear.
You're alright in my book!
I post all over the place. It makes those that are more anal retentive
than I am absolutely crazy.

No, it just makes you look like an idiot.

Sometimes top posting is OK, sometimes bottom posting, and sometimes
interlaced is tits. Editing out the garbage is always correct.
Thinking there is one correct way all the time is lame, and could make
you look like an idiot. Failure to adequately edit your message using
common sense always denotes idiocy or slothfulness, or both.

When I say that bottom posting is the way to go (and if you bother to
check you'll see that close to 100% of the participants here, including
yourself, bottom post), I implicitly include judicious trimming as part
of that. It *is* annoying in the extreme to have to scroll through a
hundred lines of previous messages only to get to a 1-line reply at the
bottom.


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

As is scrolling down through 30 ~ 35 lines of text if a 1-line or one word
reply is at the bottom and it could have easily been used at the top.


"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
On 3/7/2010 9:08 AM Jack Stein spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 3/6/2010 11:13 AM Kate spake thus:

LMAO Leon!
I'm a PITA, I swear.
You're alright in my book!
I post all over the place. It makes those that are more anal retentive
than I am absolutely crazy.

No, it just makes you look like an idiot.

Sometimes top posting is OK, sometimes bottom posting, and sometimes
interlaced is tits. Editing out the garbage is always correct. Thinking
there is one correct way all the time is lame, and could make you look
like an idiot. Failure to adequately edit your message using common
sense always denotes idiocy or slothfulness, or both.

When I say that bottom posting is the way to go (and if you bother to
check you'll see that close to 100% of the participants here, including
yourself, bottom post), I implicitly include judicious trimming as part of
that. It *is* annoying in the extreme to have to scroll through a hundred
lines of previous messages only to get to a 1-line reply at the bottom.


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 07:33:17 -0600, the infamous "Leon"
scrawled the following:


"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...
On 3/6/2010 11:13 AM Kate spake thus:
I post all over the place. It makes those that are more anal retentive
than I am absolutely crazy.

No, it just makes you look like an idiot.

Sorry, Kate, but I agree with David's horrible, nasty, ugly, vicious,
hateful, war-mongering response.
(See? Other folks can overreact, too, Lew.


But please do whatever you want.

Tolerance is his virtue. I've plonked half the topposters I've read.


I think the idiot is the one that needs to look through all the mess to get
to the reply. Basically the one that cannot remember what he just read in
the immediate above post. Why reread each time if you have any kind of
memory. Why not for those that can keep up do we need to have the response
at the bottom?

Why? For it to be a logical response, especially on proper
(bottom-posted, or interstitial if for multiple phrase replies like
this one) responses. It's not as bad when the original post and
answer both fit on the screen but it's still a real bother for a lot
of people. That said, yes, more people should snip their quotes to
only the relevant info. (BTW, topposters never snip anything at all,
adding unnecessary delay to Usenet use for everyone.) sniffle


So to in response to your probable response, If you have not read the whole
thread or your computer does not show the previous response, read the
statement below the top posted response.

What about those who don't have time to read the posts every day, or
just started reading the newsgroup?

For those of you who find it hard to bottom-post, get a decent
freakin' _newsreader_, fer chrissake! Usenet isn't rocket science.

--
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?

On 3/7/2010 1:03 PM Leon spake thus:

As is scrolling down through 30 ~ 35 lines of text if a 1-line or one word
reply is at the bottom and it could have easily been used at the top.

But it puts the whole conversation *out of order*. As in bass-ackwards.

Larry's sig says it best:

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?

Unfortunately, we've all been bamboozled into accepting top-posting as
the norm, because that's the way 99% of the corporate world does things
because, I suspect, that's the way Micro$oft products operate out of the
box, and nobody stops for a millisecond to think that there might be a
better way--and because people's attention spans seem to be measured in
milliseconds.

All of which I utterly reject.

But the glaring fact is that if you look through this newsgroup (or
really any newsgroup for that matter), you'll see that most people
bottom-post, going against the grain of corporate (and probably
personal) email standards.

It just makes more sense that way, for reasons that have been
exhaustively explained time and time again.


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...


I think the idiot is the one that needs to look through all the mess to
get
to the reply. Basically the one that cannot remember what he just read in
the immediate above post. Why reread each time if you have any kind of
memory. Why not for those that can keep up do we need to have the
response
at the bottom?

Why? For it to be a logical response, especially on proper
(bottom-posted, or interstitial if for multiple phrase replies like
this one) responses. It's not as bad when the original post and
answer both fit on the screen but it's still a real bother for a lot
of people. That said, yes, more people should snip their quotes to
only the relevant info. (BTW, topposters never snip anything at all,
adding unnecessary delay to Usenet use for everyone.) sniffle


You have a point there. However I try to remember to snip everything and
simply post a response, it naturally ends up at the top. :~)

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...


It just makes more sense that way, for reasons that have been exhaustively
explained time and time again.

To each his own David.

On 3/7/2010 5:46 PM Leon spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...

It just makes more sense that way, for reasons that have been exhaustively
explained time and time again.

To each his own David.

Then why are you bottom-posting?


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

David Nebenzahl writes:
On 3/7/2010 1:03 PM Leon spake thus:

As is scrolling down through 30 ~ 35 lines of text if a 1-line or
one word reply is at the bottom and it could have easily been used
at the top.

But it puts the whole conversation *out of order*. As in bass-ackwards.

Larry's sig says it best:

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?

Unfortunately, we've all been bamboozled into accepting top-posting as
the norm, because that's the way 99% of the corporate world does
things because, I suspect, that's the way Micro$oft products operate
out of the box, and nobody stops for a millisecond to think that there
might be a better way--and because people's attention spans seem to be
measured in milliseconds.

That's a good point. In fact, when corresponding in the "business"
(non-tech) world, I almost always top-post because I am convinced that
most of my colleagues and correspondants would not realize that there is
a new response beneath the quoted text; rather, most would probably
assume that I mistakenly hit reply before adding my own response and not
bother to scroll down to check. Sad but true...

That being said, I think top-posting sometimes is OK when you have a
short response or meta-content that addresses the entire thread and is
not so complicated that one needs to be intimately familiar with the
sequential development of the thread. In such cases, you may want to
still quote the bulk of the thread just in case for background context
but you want to save the reader the PITA of scrolling through it all
just to read your short, obvious, and context-independent response. Of
course, the pedantic and obsessive-compulsive may still not concede that
case...

In such cases, you may want to
still quote the bulk of the thread just in case for background context
but you want to save the reader the PITA of scrolling through it all
just to read your short, obvious, and context-independent response. Of
course, the pedantic and obsessive-compulsive may still not concede that
case...

exactly, they'll just tell you you're wrong and that they're man enough to
admit it.

I put this at the bottom so the pedantic and OC would see it.....

On 3/7/2010 6:33 PM Joe spake thus:

In such cases, you may want to still quote the bulk of the thread
just in case for background context but you want to save the reader
the PITA of scrolling through it all just to read your short,
obvious, and context-independent response. Of course, the pedantic
and obsessive-compulsive may still not concede that case...

exactly, they'll just tell you you're wrong and that they're man enough to
admit it.

I put this at the bottom so the pedantic and OC would see it.....

You know, you completely miss the intent of my sig. No skin off my back;
your loss, not mine.

(Hint: I did not say this.)


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

*snip*


For those of you who find it hard to bottom-post, get a decent
freakin' _newsreader_, fer chrissake! Usenet isn't rocket science.

I set my newsreader to show the quoted text in a smaller font than the new
text, and often use its skip to next lower unquoted paragraph feature. The
whole top, middle, or bottom thing doesn't bother me; my newsreader takes
care of it.

Puckdropper
--
Never teach your apprentice everything you know.

You know, you completely miss the intent of my sig. No skin off my back;
your loss, not mine.

(Hint: I did not say this.)


What I've not missed is your insistence that a diverse group of people with
a common interest all throw away their individual preferences and behave in
a homogenized manner to accomodate what you believe to be the best, whether
or not they believe it to be the best. My refusal to bend to your will is
*not* my loss.

Have a wonderful day (if you want to, if not, have whatever kind of day you
prefer),

jc

"David Nebenzahl" wrote
No, it just makes you look like an idiot.

But please do whatever you want.


--
Thank you, I most certainly will!
Not that I needed your permission.

Interestingly enough, your sig line is completely appropriate in this
instance, with one minor adjustment.

"You were wrong, and I'm WOman enough to admit it."

- a Usenet "apology"

Joe wrote:

What I've not missed is your insistence that a diverse group of people with
a common interest all throw away their individual preferences and behave in
a homogenized manner to accomodate what you believe to be the best, whether
or not they believe it to be the best. My refusal to bend to your will is
*not* my loss.

So, you're an anarchist rather than a totalitarian. I can live with
that. Much better than being a totalitarian socialist *******!

Have a wonderful day (if you want to, if not, have whatever kind of day you
prefer),

Still, I prefer you don't toss your bones on the floor after eating at
my table with your hands... A little etiquette can be a good thing, no?

--
Jack
An armed society is a polite society.
http://jbstein.com

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 3/7/2010 9:08 AM Jack Stein spake thus:

Sometimes top posting is OK, sometimes bottom posting, and sometimes
interlaced is tits. Editing out the garbage is always correct.

When I say that bottom posting is the way to go (and if you bother to
check you'll see that close to 100% of the participants here, including
yourself, bottom post), I implicitly include judicious trimming as part
of that. It *is* annoying in the extreme to have to scroll through a
hundred lines of previous messages only to get to a 1-line reply at the
bottom.

Can't argue with that. Also hard to find a good reason to top post, but
they do exist I reckon. Unless you are afraid the original message was
not read, there is about no reason to top post, other than laziness (too
lazy or dumb to edit).

--
Jack
Obama Care...Freedom not Included!
http://jbstein.com

On 3/08/10 9:53 AM, Jack Stein wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 3/7/2010 9:08 AM Jack Stein spake thus:

Sometimes top posting is OK, sometimes bottom posting, and sometimes
interlaced is tits. Editing out the garbage is always correct.

When I say that bottom posting is the way to go (and if you bother to
check you'll see that close to 100% of the participants here,
including yourself, bottom post), I implicitly include judicious
trimming as part of that. It *is* annoying in the extreme to have to
scroll through a hundred lines of previous messages only to get to a
1-line reply at the bottom.

Can't argue with that. Also hard to find a good reason to top post, but
they do exist I reckon. Unless you are afraid the original message was
not read, there is about no reason to top post, other than laziness (too
lazy or dumb to edit).

Usually it is a broken/misprogrammed Usenet client, or not selecting the
option to put the cursor at the bottom of the previous message, if it
exists.

I am sure they are not scrolling to the top to be annoying.
--
Froz...


The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:53:39 -0500, Jack Stein
wrote:

Can't argue with that. Also hard to find a good reason to top post, but
they do exist I reckon. Unless you are afraid the original message was
not read, there is about no reason to top post, other than laziness (too
lazy or dumb to edit).

On case where I top post on usenet is to a blind person whom I am
replying to. And sometime just to poke at someone who is all to
serious about such things.

Mark