Top posting / trimming

[Rod Speed]

You're talking about how Outhouse Express mangles quotes, I assume.
Actually I am frustrated by that as well, and have, on several
occasions, suggested to OE users that they fix their software (or not
use OE at all). I also hate the way OE breaks long URL's, and will
chide OE users about that, as well.

These are different issues, though - they are not the result
of willful selfishness and laziness on the poster's part -

Corse they are. Even the stupidest should be able to see the worst
obscenitys that result and they dont bother to do anything about it.

just a bit of ignorance regarding their choice of tools.

It cant be just ignorance if they keep using it once told that
an alternative is available that doesnt have that problem.

So, I am indeed consistent on these matters,

You dont obsessively howl about those to anything
like the extent you whine about top posting.

And you hardly ever actually post a damned
thing, just whine about top posting.

although I find one more irksome than the other.

Your hangups are your problem. You get
no say on how anyone does anything. Ever.

Obviously, opinions may vary on the proper amount of "context retention".

Yep, you've lost too much context there.

But that fact that I make a real effort
makes a large postitive difference, IMO.

When you're clearly a mindless obsessive about top
posting, and deny any possibility of it ever being
appropriate, you'll have to pardon us if we dont actually
consider that your opinion amounts to a hill of beans.

Use of that sort of IMO thing ****s effective communication too.

Fact, whether you think it's funny or not, F'nut. The
key is making an *effort* to communicate clearly.

The reality is that few bother. Few even bother to proofread.

You do it, with the added burden of using what is not your
native language. Rod does it, too. Top posters don't do it.

Complete drivel when they are making a general comment,
have the new material where its easiest to find, with the
full context available for those who need that because
they are reading that particular post in isolation.

In spades when groups.google is being used and
you're zooming thru a thread very quickly when
looking for an answer to a specific problem.

And if you aint yet managed to grasp what a massive difference
groups.google has made to effective communication...

Wrong, unless you just ignore or kill-file the top poster.

Wrong. Top posting has its place, as
does the interleaved posting we 3 prefer.

Top posting is preferable to bottom posting.

Otherwise things get VERY messy,

Only for the pathetic creatures who are locked in the past.

and the top poster is blathering-away at the top so
it's difficult to track all the points being discussed.

You dont always need to do that, particularly when you
are reading each post in a thread at the same time or
can remember the context like we are doing currently.

It's virtually impossible (difficult at best) to have a quality,
point-by-point discussion if one of the participants is top posting.

Yes, but they arent even attempting a point by point discussion,
they are mostly making a general comment on the entire post.

 

[chrisv]

Pathetic excuse for bullshit.


You were the one stupid enough to rabbit on about 'all', child.

And you were the one who lied when you said "Corse it is" all about
bandwidth, Ron^Hd.

Only a pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist wouldnt be
able to grasp that many dont bother about readability or
understandability and dont even bother to proof read their posts.

Who are you describing here, Ron^Hd? Yourself? Certainly not me.
Indeed, the crux of my argument is that people don't take the effort
that they should. Duh.

Because that matters WHEN THE ENTIRE THREAD
ISNT READ IN ONE SITTING, OR SOME POSTS ARE
MISSING ON THE NEWS SERVER BEING USED, cretin.

Caps lock problems, Ron^Hd?

(Snip Rodney telling me multiple times that I "get to like that or lump that".)

And you get to like or lump me telling the top posters that they're
morons, Ron^Hd.

Wrong. Most obviously when posts are missing on the news
server being used and the original unedited post aint visible.

Wrong. I leave at least enough context for anyone to understand what
my post is addressing. It's not my obligation to be a back-up for
google, stupid.

IF YOU ARE GOING TO QUOTE EVERYTHING FOR WHATEVER
REASON AND ARE ONLY GOING TO MAKE A SINGLE RESPONSE,
FOR WHATEVER REASON, TOP POSTING IS MORE READABLE
FOR MOST BECAUSE SOME SYSTEMS LIKE GROUPS.GOOGLE
MAKE IT HARDER TO SEE BOTTOM POSTED MATERIAL,
PARTICULARLY WHEN AN ENTIRE THREAD IS BEING READ.

Get that caps-lock key fixed, wanker.

 

[David Williams]

What a fine user group this is! Just in case some of you clowns have your
heads so far up your arses that you can't see further than your colon, Rod
is the only one to have offered any practical help! Most of the other
contributors have been only too happy to rush off a post complaining of
missed spaces, and top posting, but seemingly have so little technical
ability that this is where their knowledge base is sited: In user group
semantics. If I ever need to know where to put a comma, or how to Make my
postings politically correct then Chris, Mike T, you'll be my first
contacts. However if I need help with anything more complex than where to
find a particular key on the keyboard, I'll ask Rod.
love y'all - be sweet now!

 

[Rod Speed]

Some silly little pathological liar desperately cowering behind

And you were the one who lied when you
said "Corse it is" all about bandwidth, Ron^Hd.

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of
your predicament better than that pathetic effort, gutless.

Who are you describing here, Ron^Hd? Yourself? Certainly not me.

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of
your predicament better than that pathetic effort, gutless.

Indeed, the crux of my argument is that
people don't take the effort that they should.

You get no say what so ever on how anyone posts except yourself. Ever.

Caps lock problems, Ron^Hd?

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of
your predicament better than that pathetic effort, gutless.

Usual flagrantly dishonest selective quoting.

And you get to like or lump me telling the
top posters that they're morons, Ron^Hd.

Yep, you're always welcome to make that spectacular fool
of yourself till the cows come home if you like, gutless.

Right.

I leave at least enough context for anyone
to understand what my post is addressing.

Lie. You do nothing of the sort. You in fact
flagrantly dishonestly selectively quote instead.

It's not my obligation to be a back-up for google, stupid.

Nothing like effective communication, ****wit child.

Get that caps-lock key fixed, wanker.

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of your
predicament better than that pathetic effort, ****wit.

 

[chrisv]

Lie.

You are truly pathetic, Rodney. Your lies are obvious for everyone to
see, Ron^Hd. On google forever, wanker.

You aren't fooling anyone, Ron^Hd.

 

[Rod Speed]

Some pathetic little pathological liar/mindless obsessive thats
never actually posted a damned thing except utterly mindless
silly little rants about top posting, desperately cowering behind
chrisv <[email protected]> desperately attempted to
bullshit its way out of its predicament in message
and fooled absolutely no one at all. As always.

 

[chrisv]

When you're clearly a mindless obsessive about top
posting, and deny any possibility of it ever being
appropriate, you'll have to pardon us if we dont actually
consider that your opinion amounts to a hill of beans.

Pretty funny coming from Ron^Hd, considering that the opinion of a
foul-mouthed liar like yourself is worth even less.

On rare occasions top-posting can be appropriate. There's exceptions
to every rule, obviously. So, your claim that I "deny any possibility
of it ever being appropriate" is just another of your lies, Ron^Hd.

 

[chrisv]

Some pathetic little pathological liar/mindless obsessive ...

Just more lies from Rodney. I have never lied in this newsgroup.
Below is an example of what Rodney considers a "lie" from me:

Lie. You do nothing of the sort. You in fact
flagrantly dishonestly selectively quote instead.

Is what I wrote there a "lie"? Obviously not. To the best of my
knowledge and abilities, it is a correct statement. May others
disagree? Certainly, but that doesn't make it a lie.

Indeed, Rodney lied when he claimed that I lied! Rodney lies a lot.
I have documented several lies from him, in this very thread. I
invite everyone to review the points on which I claim Rodney lied, and
I think that you will come to the same conclusion that I have: Rod
Speed is a pathological liar.

 

[Rod Speed]

Some pathetic little pathological liar/mindless obsessive thats
never actually posted a damned thing except utterly mindless
silly little rants about top posting, desperately cowering behind
chrisv <[email protected]> desperately attempted to
bullshit its way out of its predicament in message
and fooled absolutely no one at all. As always.

 

[Rod Speed]

Some pathetic little pathological liar/mindless obsessive thats
never actually posted a damned thing except utterly mindless
silly little rants about top posting, desperately cowering behind
chrisv <[email protected]> desperately attempted to
bullshit its way out of its predicament in message
and fooled absolutely no one at all. As always.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

You're talking about how Outhouse Express mangles quotes, I assume.
Actually I am frustrated by that as well, and have, on several
occasions, suggested to OE users that they fix their software (or not
use OE at all). I also hate the way OE breaks long URL's, and will
chide OE users about that, as well.

These are different issues, though - they are not the result of
willful selfishness and laziness on the poster's part - just a bit of
ignorance regarding their choice of tools.

So, I am indeed consistent on these matters, although I find one more
irksome than the other.


Obviously, opinions may vary on the proper amount of "context
retention". But that fact that I make a real effort makes a large
postitive difference, IMO.


Fact, whether you think it's funny or not, F'nut.

What was that about calling other people foulmouths, Chris?

 

[chrisv]

What was that about calling other people foulmouths, Chris?

"nut" is foul? I wish that "nut" was the worst thing that I've been
called on USENET... 8)