| |
Main
Date: 22 Apr 2006 19:05:44
From: Jeff Grippe
Subject: Please show me the way oh great one...
|
For a long time, Ed Dolan has told us that the good people from Google have
provided the "bible" for Usenet posting style. I don't know why it never
occurred to me to check. Well now I've checked and can't find this document
anywhere. I would be very curious to see this document which is the basis of
my being an idiot for top-posting.
Now I know that the great one is not into things such as research and facts
(they can be so disruptive to the truth can't they?), but perhaps he would
consent to post the url of this grand opus of Usenet style for all of us to
examine.
C'mon Ed, I want to see what the right way really is. While I could infer it
from your posts or learn it from you, I'd prefer to go to the source which
you say exists. Please show me this grand document so that I might be
enlightened as you have been.
Jeff
|
|
| |
Date: 24 Apr 2006 20:54:21
From:
Subject: Re: Please show me the way oh great one...
|
Jeff Grippe wrote:
> If I start a thread on ARBR, please do not cross post it to RBM. If you
> start a thread then you can post and cross post it wherever you like. Leave
> my threads alone. The RBM people aren't interested and don't like it. Heck
> I'll be a lot of the ARBR people wish I wouldn't do this again.
Jeff,
I'm sure Ed will be able to justify this breech of Usenet etiquette.
Enjoy,
Perry B
|
| |
Date: 24 Apr 2006 20:47:11
From:
Subject: Re: Please show me the way oh great one...
|
Jeff,
I followed Ed's link and did not find a definitive answer. In fact,
they seem to talk about the original Usenet where top posting WAS
considered in poor taste, but with todays newsreaders top posting is,
to many, the perferred way in many instances such as this. Ed just has
too much short-term memory loss and shouldn't be on Usenet in the first
place, but he just doesn't get it.
Enjoy,
Perry Butler
Jeff Grippe wrote:
> Ed, your endless repitition does not make it correct. I did the search and
> what's more I read the results. Top-posting is not the universally regarded
> evil that you claim it is. You obviously did not bother to read any opinion
> that didn't agree with yours which is typical of your kind. If you read
> "Knots" by R.D. Laing, I fear you took it a bit too seriously.
>
> So go ahead and shout back your familiar "ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS". Heck
> do it three or four times while your at it. Since the opinions (and that is
> all they are is opinions) are there for people to read who choose to do the
> search, then a thinking person will discover that a range of opinions
> exists. If your claim ultimately rests on the authority of oral tradition
> then mine goes back quite a bit further than yours.
>
> Jeff
>
> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message
> news:xPadndsfoc7y1dDZRVn-qg@prairiewave.com...
> >
> > "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7.com> wrote in message
> > news:124mmeorj4a3v84@news.supernews.com...
> >>
> >> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message
> >> news:p-GdnUkmtsoKXdfZnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
> >>
> >>> I learned from Tom Sherman the proper way to post to Usenet. He was
> >>> always correct and quite meticulous as I could see from day one and so I
> >>> merely copied him.
> >>
> >> This is typical of the sloppy thinking of those who act as you do. You
> >> insist that your opinion is backed by an authoritative truth, and then we
> >> find out later that you essentially, made it up.
> >
> > Do a search under "top posting" and you will come up with a plethora of
> > websites explaining why top posting is for the birds.
> >
> > To get you started, go here:
> >
> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=top+posting&btnG=Search
> >
> > I used to have a lot of information on the evils of top posting saved to
> > My
> > Documents, but they are long gone. It is just so elementary I never
> > thought
> > I would be called upon to justify bottom posting. Trust me on this, top
> > posting is for idiots and scoundrels and you should not be caught dead
> > doing
> > it.
> >
> >> For a long time you have claimed that there is a "Strunk and White" of
> >> Usenet style provided by Google. Now that you have been asked to produce
> >> it, you say "I copied Tom Sherman".
> >>
> >> I did the Google search you recommended and I read some the documents. If
> >> you had done that you would find that top-posting is controversial. There
> >> are absolutely some who say you shouldn't do it but there are others who
> >> say that top-posting should not be universally condemned and that it has
> >> its place.
> >
> > Do a search under "top posting" and you will come up with a plethora of
> > websites explaining why top posting is for the birds.
> >
> > To get you started, go here:
> >
> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=top+posting&btnG=Search
> >
> > I used to have a lot of information on the evils of top posting saved to
> > My
> > Documents, but they are long gone. It is just so elementary I never
> > thought
> > I would be called upon to justify bottom posting. Trust me on this, top
> > posting is for idiots and scoundrels and you should not be caught dead
> > doing
> > it.
> >
> >> Here is the bottom line of this topic. Produce the document that you have
> >> been resting your opinion on or cease to criticize people for how they
> >> choose to post.
> >
> > Do a search under "top posting" and you will come up with a plethora of
> > websites explaining why top posting is for the birds.
> >
> > To get you started, go here:
> >
> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=top+posting&btnG=Search
> >
> > I used to have a lot of information on the evils of top posting saved to
> > My
> > Documents, but they are long gone. It is just so elementary I never
> > thought
> > I would be called upon to justify bottom posting. Trust me on this, top
> > posting is for idiots and scoundrels and you should not be caught dead
> > doing
> > it.
> >
> >> You copied Tom Sherman. Good for you. I have no idea how long he has been
> >> involved with Usenet. I do know that I have been involved with Usenet for
> >> a long time and I was on "Chat BBS's" (which are not chat rooms as we
> >> think of them today but rather they were text-only, topic based message
> >> boards) before there was Usenet.
> >>
> >> If we are just going to work on "oral tradition" then mine goes back
> >> quite far.
> >>
> >> I think you are guilty of everything that you accuse liberals of. For
> >> someone who is "supposedly" as well educated as you claim to be (I don't
> >> believe anything you say anymore. You are like "Weekly World News",
> >> something to read strictly for entertainment), your thinking is weak. You
> >> make claims of authority that you can't really substantiate and hope that
> >> nobody will check.
> >
> > Do a search under "top posting" and you will come up with a plethora of
> > websites explaining why top posting is for the birds.
> >
> > To get you started, go here:
> >
> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=top+posting&btnG=Search
> >
> > I used to have a lot of information on the evils of top posting saved to
> > My
> > Documents, but they are long gone. It is just so elementary I never
> > thought
> > I would be called upon to justify bottom posting. Trust me on this, top
> > posting is for idiots and scoundrels and you should not be caught dead
> > doing
> > it.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> > aka
> > Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
> >
> >
> >
|
| | |
Date: 24 Apr 2006 23:36:52
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Please show me the way oh great one...
|
<perryb67@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1145936831.082339.156590@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!
> Jeff,
>
> I followed Ed's link and did not find a definitive answer. In fact,
> they seem to talk about the original Usenet where top posting WAS
> considered in poor taste, but with todays newsreaders top posting is,
> to many, the perferred way in many instances such as this. Ed just has
> too much short-term memory loss and shouldn't be on Usenet in the first
> place, but he just doesn't get it.
See my response to Jeff Grippe's message preceding yours.
I would add that it is just so reasonable and logical to bottom post that
any discussion of the issue is strictly for morons. We want the reader to
follow with crystal clarity who is saying what and in the proper order. Both
Perry and Jeff confuse Usenet, which has outside readers, with email, which
has no outside readers.
However, both Perry and Jeff now at least include the complete previous
message to which they are responding at the bottom of their messages, so
that does mitigate somewhat the seriousness of their offense. What I can't
stand are those who respond to a message and do not include any of the
previous message, not on top where it belongs, and not even at the bottom
where it does NOT belong.
It is impossible to edit a previous message when you top post. Very many
messages need to be edited as it is often quite pointless to post it
complete when you are narrowing the discussion down to a few specific
points. Elementary, my dear Watson!
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2006 06:58:58
From: Jeff Grippe
Subject: Re: Please show me the way oh great one...
|
And as long as we are on the topic of unjust criticism of Usenet style....
Peter Clinch has a link to his personal website. If you look at it and in
particular look at his bio, you will find that his signature is spot on.
There is nothing about it to criticize. It is simply an accurate statement
of his title. I'll grant you that some university titles can get long but as
they go, his is rather short and seems to describe what he does and where he
works.
Note to Peter: If I ever make it to Scotland (and I do hope to cycle there
someday), perhaps we can play Go. I used to call myself 15 Kyu but I haven't
been playing regularly these days so I'd say 20 Kyu is probably more
accurate. Regardless of how well or poorly I play, however, I really enjoy
the game. I find it has a beauty that seems to be missing from the more
popular Chess to which it is often compared. I also enjoy the 13x13 game
because you can usually get one or two games in to one lunch hour as opposed
to the standard 19x19 which can easily take more time. Also the 13x13 allows
for situations to occur that the 9x9 game does not. How many 9x9 games have
a meaningful ko fight? It happens in 13x13.
Jeff
|
| | |
Date: 24 Apr 2006 17:17:15
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Please show me the way oh great one...
|
"Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7.com > wrote in message
news:124mnfj1i8p24a2@news.supernews.com...
> And as long as we are on the topic of unjust criticism of Usenet style....
>
> Peter Clinch has a link to his personal website. If you look at it and in
> particular look at his bio, you will find that his signature is spot on.
> There is nothing about it to criticize. It is simply an accurate statement
> of his title. I'll grant you that some university titles can get long but
> as they go, his is rather short and seems to describe what he does and
> where he works.
[...]
Peter Clinck is an idiot of the first rank. He can post his freaking
credentials when he is communicating with his colleagues (although they
would laugh at him if he did), but anything other than that is in very bad
taste. Who gives a rat's ass about any of his titles on these cycling
newsgroups? No one else does it, but that does not prevent him from doing
it - does it? That is why I regard him as an idiot, deserving only of my
disdain and contempt.
Jeff needs to work some on his signature from my point of view. Just plain
'Jeff ' is revolting. Here is a suggestion.... 'Jeff - St-Ass New York
Jew.'
I am the only person in the entire history of Usenet to have a proper
signature. It is honest, succinct and yet modest. Most importantly, it tells
you who I REALLY am!
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Apr 2006 21:25:14
From: Jeff Grippe
Subject: Re: Please show me the way oh great one...
|
I fear I am getting sucked into another conversation with Ed Dolan.
Dumb-Ass New York Jew would probably be better since I don't know enough to
leave it alone.
Jeff
PS
If I start a thread on ARBR, please do not cross post it to RBM. If you
start a thread then you can post and cross post it wherever you like. Leave
my threads alone. The RBM people aren't interested and don't like it. Heck
I'll be a lot of the ARBR people wish I wouldn't do this again.
"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message
news:TZadnayCPv_y09DZnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
>
> "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7.com> wrote in message
> news:124mnfj1i8p24a2@news.supernews.com...
>> And as long as we are on the topic of unjust criticism of Usenet
>> style....
>>
>> Peter Clinch has a link to his personal website. If you look at it and in
>> particular look at his bio, you will find that his signature is spot on.
>> There is nothing about it to criticize. It is simply an accurate
>> statement of his title. I'll grant you that some university titles can
>> get long but as they go, his is rather short and seems to describe what
>> he does and where he works.
> [...]
>
> Peter Clinck is an idiot of the first rank. He can post his freaking
> credentials when he is communicating with his colleagues (although they
> would laugh at him if he did), but anything other than that is in very bad
> taste. Who gives a rat's ass about any of his titles on these cycling
> newsgroups? No one else does it, but that does not prevent him from doing
> it - does it? That is why I regard him as an idiot, deserving only of my
> disdain and contempt.
>
> Jeff needs to work some on his signature from my point of view. Just plain
> 'Jeff ' is revolting. Here is a suggestion.... 'Jeff - St-Ass New York
> Jew.'
>
> I am the only person in the entire history of Usenet to have a proper
> signature. It is honest, succinct and yet modest. Most importantly, it
> tells you who I REALLY am!
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
>
>
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Apr 2006 00:07:20
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Please show me the way oh great one...
|
"Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7.com > wrote in message
news:124qujrm46q6l2d@news.supernews.com...
ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!
>I fear I am getting sucked into another conversation with Ed Dolan.
>
> Dumb-Ass New York Jew would probably be better since I don't know enough
> to leave it alone.
>
> Jeff
>
> PS
>
> If I start a thread on ARBR, please do not cross post it to RBM. If you
> start a thread then you can post and cross post it wherever you like.
> Leave my threads alone. The RBM people aren't interested and don't like
> it. Heck I'll be a lot of the ARBR people wish I wouldn't do this again.
Any thread that I post to will likely get sent to RBM as I want to drag some
of them over to ARBR if possible. However, if it is strictly a recumbent
subject I will limit it to ARBR. But very many subjects are of interest to
both groups and we need some input from RBM since we are such a small group.
However, I will take your concerns to heart and try not to call you a lot of
names on other newsgroups.
Note how NYC posts to various newsgroups. If this is done intelligently,
there is nothing wrong with it. I used to think that it was wrong, but no
more. A very small group like ARBR can easily be destroyed by a few
scoundrels. The more the merrier as long as the subject is interesting to
everyone.
By the way, do not worry about the folks on RBM. I have studied their posts
intently and they are mostly a bunch of idiots, morons and imbeciles. Even
the few st ones are quite stupid when they get off their specialties.
Read Bill Baka on RBM as much as possible if you would like to know how dumb
it gets. Then read Claire to get the trivia that is ever the hallk of
that group.
The worst large cycling newsgroup I have ever encountered is the Aussie one,
but the UK one is not much better. The thought occurs to me quite regularly
that we cyclists are just naturally kind of dumb and stupid. Apparently it
goes with the territory.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 22 Apr 2006 20:02:03
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Please show me the way oh great one...
|
"Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7.com > wrote in message
news:124ldm8pp6c5g4c@news.supernews.com...
> For a long time, Ed Dolan has told us that the good people from Google
> have provided the "bible" for Usenet posting style. I don't know why it
> never occurred to me to check. Well now I've checked and can't find this
> document anywhere. I would be very curious to see this document which is
> the basis of my being an idiot for top-posting.
>
> Now I know that the great one is not into things such as research and
> facts (they can be so disruptive to the truth can't they?), but perhaps he
> would consent to post the url of this grand opus of Usenet style for all
> of us to examine.
>
> C'mon Ed, I want to see what the right way really is. While I could infer
> it from your posts or learn it from you, I'd prefer to go to the source
> which you say exists. Please show me this grand document so that I might
> be enlightened as you have been.
>
> Jeff
Do a search under "top posting" and you will come up with a plethora of
websites explaining why top posting is for the birds.
To get you started, go here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=top+posting&btnG=Search
I used to have a lot of information on the evils of top posting saved to My
Documents, but they are long gone. It is just so elementary I never thought
I would be called upon to justify bottom posting. Trust me on this, top
posting is for idiots and scoundrels and you should not be caught dead doing
it.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 22 Apr 2006 18:47:24
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Please show me the way oh great one...
|
"Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7.com > wrote in message
news:124ldm8pp6c5g4c@news.supernews.com...
> For a long time, Ed Dolan has told us that the good people from Google
> have provided the "bible" for Usenet posting style. I don't know why it
> never occurred to me to check. Well now I've checked and can't find this
> document anywhere. I would be very curious to see this document which is
> the basis of my being an idiot for top-posting.
>
> Now I know that the great one is not into things such as research and
> facts (they can be so disruptive to the truth can't they?), but perhaps he
> would consent to post the url of this grand opus of Usenet style for all
> of us to examine.
>
> C'mon Ed, I want to see what the right way really is. While I could infer
> it from your posts or learn it from you, I'd prefer to go to the source
> which you say exists. Please show me this grand document so that I might
> be enlightened as you have been.
>
> Jeff
I learned from Tom Sherman the proper way to post to Usenet. He was always
correct and quite meticulous as I could see from day one and so I merely
copied him. However, subsequent posts by others and the Google web site
provided additional confirmation that there was a right way to post and a
wrong way to post. To me it is just so elementary that it hardly bears
discussion. However, I will do a bit of research when I overcome my natural
laziness and bring to you the information that you need in order for you to
finally get your head screwed on straight. I will post the information on
this thread, so stay tuned.
If Jon Meinecke were not permanently out to lunch when serious things need
to get settled he could weigh in on this matter and set us all straight. Tom
Sherman seems to have left the group after having been here for many years.
All I know for sure is that top posting is NEVER correct. It is only done by
dunces and others who for reasons of their own do not want to play fair.
Jeff Grippe is not a bad top poster as top posters go, but the method lends
itself to all kinds of falseness and unfairness as well as confusing the
reader who is not involved in the thread. I always want to be fair to my
adversaries and to make it easy for the uninvolved reader to follow what is
being said. And so I will continue to observe the proper formatting to
Usenet. After all, it is only scoundrels who do not want to play fair.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | |
Date: 23 Apr 2006 06:41:27
From: Jeff Grippe
Subject: Re: Please show me the way oh great one...
|
"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message
news:p-GdnUkmtsoKXdfZnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
> I learned from Tom Sherman the proper way to post to Usenet. He was always
> correct and quite meticulous as I could see from day one and so I merely
> copied him.
This is typical of the sloppy thinking of those who act as you do. You
insist that your opinion is backed by an authoritative truth, and then we
find out later that you essentially, made it up.
For a long time you have claimed that there is a "Strunk and White" of
Usenet style provided by Google. Now that you have been asked to produce it,
you say "I copied Tom Sherman".
I did the Google search you recommended and I read some the documents. If
you had done that you would find that top-posting is controversial. There
are absolutely some who say you shouldn't do it but there are others who say
that top-posting should not be universally condemned and that it has its
place.
Here is the bottom line of this topic. Produce the document that you have
been resting your opinion on or cease to criticize people for how they
choose to post.
You copied Tom Sherman. Good for you. I have no idea how long he has been
involved with Usenet. I do know that I have been involved with Usenet for a
long time and I was on "Chat BBS's" (which are not chat rooms as we think of
them today but rather they were text-only, topic based message boards)
before there was Usenet.
If we are just going to work on "oral tradition" then mine goes back quite
far.
I think you are guilty of everything that you accuse liberals of. For
someone who is "supposedly" as well educated as you claim to be (I don't
believe anything you say anymore. You are like "Weekly World News",
something to read strictly for entertainment), your thinking is weak. You
make claims of authority that you can't really substantiate and hope that
nobody will check.
Jeff
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Apr 2006 16:51:35
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Please show me the way oh great one...
|
"Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7.com > wrote in message
news:124mmeorj4a3v84@news.supernews.com...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message
> news:p-GdnUkmtsoKXdfZnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
>
>> I learned from Tom Sherman the proper way to post to Usenet. He was
>> always correct and quite meticulous as I could see from day one and so I
>> merely copied him.
>
> This is typical of the sloppy thinking of those who act as you do. You
> insist that your opinion is backed by an authoritative truth, and then we
> find out later that you essentially, made it up.
Do a search under "top posting" and you will come up with a plethora of
websites explaining why top posting is for the birds.
To get you started, go here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=top+posting&btnG=Search
I used to have a lot of information on the evils of top posting saved to My
Documents, but they are long gone. It is just so elementary I never thought
I would be called upon to justify bottom posting. Trust me on this, top
posting is for idiots and scoundrels and you should not be caught dead doing
it.
> For a long time you have claimed that there is a "Strunk and White" of
> Usenet style provided by Google. Now that you have been asked to produce
> it, you say "I copied Tom Sherman".
>
> I did the Google search you recommended and I read some the documents. If
> you had done that you would find that top-posting is controversial. There
> are absolutely some who say you shouldn't do it but there are others who
> say that top-posting should not be universally condemned and that it has
> its place.
Do a search under "top posting" and you will come up with a plethora of
websites explaining why top posting is for the birds.
To get you started, go here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=top+posting&btnG=Search
I used to have a lot of information on the evils of top posting saved to My
Documents, but they are long gone. It is just so elementary I never thought
I would be called upon to justify bottom posting. Trust me on this, top
posting is for idiots and scoundrels and you should not be caught dead doing
it.
> Here is the bottom line of this topic. Produce the document that you have
> been resting your opinion on or cease to criticize people for how they
> choose to post.
Do a search under "top posting" and you will come up with a plethora of
websites explaining why top posting is for the birds.
To get you started, go here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=top+posting&btnG=Search
I used to have a lot of information on the evils of top posting saved to My
Documents, but they are long gone. It is just so elementary I never thought
I would be called upon to justify bottom posting. Trust me on this, top
posting is for idiots and scoundrels and you should not be caught dead doing
it.
> You copied Tom Sherman. Good for you. I have no idea how long he has been
> involved with Usenet. I do know that I have been involved with Usenet for
> a long time and I was on "Chat BBS's" (which are not chat rooms as we
> think of them today but rather they were text-only, topic based message
> boards) before there was Usenet.
>
> If we are just going to work on "oral tradition" then mine goes back quite
> far.
>
> I think you are guilty of everything that you accuse liberals of. For
> someone who is "supposedly" as well educated as you claim to be (I don't
> believe anything you say anymore. You are like "Weekly World News",
> something to read strictly for entertainment), your thinking is weak. You
> make claims of authority that you can't really substantiate and hope that
> nobody will check.
Do a search under "top posting" and you will come up with a plethora of
websites explaining why top posting is for the birds.
To get you started, go here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=top+posting&btnG=Search
I used to have a lot of information on the evils of top posting saved to My
Documents, but they are long gone. It is just so elementary I never thought
I would be called upon to justify bottom posting. Trust me on this, top
posting is for idiots and scoundrels and you should not be caught dead doing
it.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Apr 2006 21:21:39
From: Jeff Grippe
Subject: Re: Please show me the way oh great one...
|
Ed, your endless repitition does not make it correct. I did the search and
what's more I read the results. Top-posting is not the universally regarded
evil that you claim it is. You obviously did not bother to read any opinion
that didn't agree with yours which is typical of your kind. If you read
"Knots" by R.D. Laing, I fear you took it a bit too seriously.
So go ahead and shout back your familiar "ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS". Heck
do it three or four times while your at it. Since the opinions (and that is
all they are is opinions) are there for people to read who choose to do the
search, then a thinking person will discover that a range of opinions
exists. If your claim ultimately rests on the authority of oral tradition
then mine goes back quite a bit further than yours.
Jeff
"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message
news:xPadndsfoc7y1dDZRVn-qg@prairiewave.com...
>
> "Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7.com> wrote in message
> news:124mmeorj4a3v84@news.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message
>> news:p-GdnUkmtsoKXdfZnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
>>
>>> I learned from Tom Sherman the proper way to post to Usenet. He was
>>> always correct and quite meticulous as I could see from day one and so I
>>> merely copied him.
>>
>> This is typical of the sloppy thinking of those who act as you do. You
>> insist that your opinion is backed by an authoritative truth, and then we
>> find out later that you essentially, made it up.
>
> Do a search under "top posting" and you will come up with a plethora of
> websites explaining why top posting is for the birds.
>
> To get you started, go here:
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=top+posting&btnG=Search
>
> I used to have a lot of information on the evils of top posting saved to
> My
> Documents, but they are long gone. It is just so elementary I never
> thought
> I would be called upon to justify bottom posting. Trust me on this, top
> posting is for idiots and scoundrels and you should not be caught dead
> doing
> it.
>
>> For a long time you have claimed that there is a "Strunk and White" of
>> Usenet style provided by Google. Now that you have been asked to produce
>> it, you say "I copied Tom Sherman".
>>
>> I did the Google search you recommended and I read some the documents. If
>> you had done that you would find that top-posting is controversial. There
>> are absolutely some who say you shouldn't do it but there are others who
>> say that top-posting should not be universally condemned and that it has
>> its place.
>
> Do a search under "top posting" and you will come up with a plethora of
> websites explaining why top posting is for the birds.
>
> To get you started, go here:
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=top+posting&btnG=Search
>
> I used to have a lot of information on the evils of top posting saved to
> My
> Documents, but they are long gone. It is just so elementary I never
> thought
> I would be called upon to justify bottom posting. Trust me on this, top
> posting is for idiots and scoundrels and you should not be caught dead
> doing
> it.
>
>> Here is the bottom line of this topic. Produce the document that you have
>> been resting your opinion on or cease to criticize people for how they
>> choose to post.
>
> Do a search under "top posting" and you will come up with a plethora of
> websites explaining why top posting is for the birds.
>
> To get you started, go here:
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=top+posting&btnG=Search
>
> I used to have a lot of information on the evils of top posting saved to
> My
> Documents, but they are long gone. It is just so elementary I never
> thought
> I would be called upon to justify bottom posting. Trust me on this, top
> posting is for idiots and scoundrels and you should not be caught dead
> doing
> it.
>
>> You copied Tom Sherman. Good for you. I have no idea how long he has been
>> involved with Usenet. I do know that I have been involved with Usenet for
>> a long time and I was on "Chat BBS's" (which are not chat rooms as we
>> think of them today but rather they were text-only, topic based message
>> boards) before there was Usenet.
>>
>> If we are just going to work on "oral tradition" then mine goes back
>> quite far.
>>
>> I think you are guilty of everything that you accuse liberals of. For
>> someone who is "supposedly" as well educated as you claim to be (I don't
>> believe anything you say anymore. You are like "Weekly World News",
>> something to read strictly for entertainment), your thinking is weak. You
>> make claims of authority that you can't really substantiate and hope that
>> nobody will check.
>
> Do a search under "top posting" and you will come up with a plethora of
> websites explaining why top posting is for the birds.
>
> To get you started, go here:
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=top+posting&btnG=Search
>
> I used to have a lot of information on the evils of top posting saved to
> My
> Documents, but they are long gone. It is just so elementary I never
> thought
> I would be called upon to justify bottom posting. Trust me on this, top
> posting is for idiots and scoundrels and you should not be caught dead
> doing
> it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
>
>
|
| | | | | |
Date: 24 Apr 2006 23:19:16
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Please show me the way oh great one...
|
"Jeff Grippe" <jeff@door7.com > wrote in message
news:124qud34g3iso84@news.supernews.com...
ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!
> Ed, your endless repitition does not make it correct. I did the search and
> what's more I read the results. Top-posting is not the universally
> regarded evil that you claim it is. You obviously did not bother to read
> any opinion that didn't agree with yours which is typical of your kind. If
> you read "Knots" by R.D. Laing, I fear you took it a bit too seriously.
>
> So go ahead and shout back your familiar "ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS".
> Heck do it three or four times while your at it. Since the opinions (and
> that is all they are is opinions) are there for people to read who choose
> to do the search, then a thinking person will discover that a range of
> opinions exists. If your claim ultimately rests on the authority of oral
> tradition then mine goes back quite a bit further than yours.
The preponderance of opinion is that top posting is wrong. But you are a
st-ass New York Jew who cannot be told anything. I learned that much
about your type 50 years ago.
'Freewheeling' (Scott) not only posted totally correct, but as complete as
it is possible to get. But he was a scholar and a gentleman (a professor at
a university). However, I will admit that scholarly posting is too much for
a newsgroup which is why I have never done it. After all, there is no here
but us idiots!
Tom Sherman was the most correct poster ever to ARBR. The only fault I ever
found with his formatting is that he sometimes edited my messages too
severely. Also, his use of footnotes was overkill and was done only to
impress the idiots, of whom there is never a shortage on ARBR.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
|
