Dick Pierce wrote:

"Einstein" wrote...

snipitty doo dah

You have utterly failed to address a central issue of the objections
to your posting style, as exemplified in the following example:

Because I think it is easier that way.
Why do you insist on top posting?

Please show us how completely inverting the logical order and thus
destroying the context of a discussion makes it easier and is not
indicative of an indolent and arrogant attitude.

Perhaps "Einstein" is afflicted with a new and special type of vertical
dyslexia.

snipitty yay

--
ha

"Einstein" wrote in message ...
I make it very easy to read my posts by
placing them at the top since that is the most obvious place to look for
them and it doesn't require someone to scroll down to read it.

Well, Mr. Einstein, if your chosen way is so superior, then why
have a NUMBER of people objected to it, and, by the looks of it,
not a single person come to your defense.

YOU don't get to choose what OTHER people find easy and then
declare THEM wrong when it doesn't work the way YOU want. To do
so is, well, indolent and arrogant, eh?

"Einstein" wrote in message ...
I make it very easy to read my posts by
placing them at the top since that is the most obvious place to look for
them and it doesn't require someone to scroll down to read it.

Well, Mr. Einstein, if your chosen way is so superior, then why
have a NUMBER of people objected to it, and, by the looks of it,
not a single person come to your defense.

YOU don't get to choose what OTHER people find easy and then
declare THEM wrong when it doesn't work the way YOU want. To do
so is, well, indolent and arrogant, eh?

"Einstein" wrote in message ...
I make it very easy to read my posts by
placing them at the top since that is the most obvious place to look for
them and it doesn't require someone to scroll down to read it.

Well, Mr. Einstein, if your chosen way is so superior, then why
have a NUMBER of people objected to it, and, by the looks of it,
not a single person come to your defense.

YOU don't get to choose what OTHER people find easy and then
declare THEM wrong when it doesn't work the way YOU want. To do
so is, well, indolent and arrogant, eh?

"Einstein" wrote in message ...
I make it very easy to read my posts by
placing them at the top since that is the most obvious place to look for
them and it doesn't require someone to scroll down to read it.

Well, Mr. Einstein, if your chosen way is so superior, then why
have a NUMBER of people objected to it, and, by the looks of it,
not a single person come to your defense.

YOU don't get to choose what OTHER people find easy and then
declare THEM wrong when it doesn't work the way YOU want. To do
so is, well, indolent and arrogant, eh?

Or perhaps, since the posts are in chronological order, and the question
appears in the post to which I'm replying, and I'm free of the text
st-st-stutter that seems to affect bottom posters.

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Dick Pierce wrote:

"Einstein" wrote...

snipitty doo dah

You have utterly failed to address a central issue of the objections
to your posting style, as exemplified in the following example:

Because I think it is easier that way.
Why do you insist on top posting?

Please show us how completely inverting the logical order and thus
destroying the context of a discussion makes it easier and is not
indicative of an indolent and arrogant attitude.

Perhaps "Einstein" is afflicted with a new and special type of vertical
dyslexia.

snipitty yay

--
ha

Or perhaps, since the posts are in chronological order, and the question
appears in the post to which I'm replying, and I'm free of the text
st-st-stutter that seems to affect bottom posters.

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Dick Pierce wrote:

"Einstein" wrote...

snipitty doo dah

You have utterly failed to address a central issue of the objections
to your posting style, as exemplified in the following example:

Because I think it is easier that way.
Why do you insist on top posting?

Please show us how completely inverting the logical order and thus
destroying the context of a discussion makes it easier and is not
indicative of an indolent and arrogant attitude.

Perhaps "Einstein" is afflicted with a new and special type of vertical
dyslexia.

snipitty yay

--
ha

Or perhaps, since the posts are in chronological order, and the question
appears in the post to which I'm replying, and I'm free of the text
st-st-stutter that seems to affect bottom posters.

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Dick Pierce wrote:

"Einstein" wrote...

snipitty doo dah

You have utterly failed to address a central issue of the objections
to your posting style, as exemplified in the following example:

Because I think it is easier that way.
Why do you insist on top posting?

Please show us how completely inverting the logical order and thus
destroying the context of a discussion makes it easier and is not
indicative of an indolent and arrogant attitude.

Perhaps "Einstein" is afflicted with a new and special type of vertical
dyslexia.

snipitty yay

--
ha

Or perhaps, since the posts are in chronological order, and the question
appears in the post to which I'm replying, and I'm free of the text
st-st-stutter that seems to affect bottom posters.

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Dick Pierce wrote:

"Einstein" wrote...

snipitty doo dah

You have utterly failed to address a central issue of the objections
to your posting style, as exemplified in the following example:

Because I think it is easier that way.
Why do you insist on top posting?

Please show us how completely inverting the logical order and thus
destroying the context of a discussion makes it easier and is not
indicative of an indolent and arrogant attitude.

Perhaps "Einstein" is afflicted with a new and special type of vertical
dyslexia.

snipitty yay

--
ha

I count the "number" as four or five, and if this "number" is a majority of
the group then I'm wasting my time here, and if your attitude is
representative of the majority then I'm sure wasting my time here.

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
"Einstein" wrote in message
...
I make it very easy to read my posts by
placing them at the top since that is the most obvious place to look for
them and it doesn't require someone to scroll down to read it.

Well, Mr. Einstein, if your chosen way is so superior, then why
have a NUMBER of people objected to it, and, by the looks of it,
not a single person come to your defense.

YOU don't get to choose what OTHER people find easy and then
declare THEM wrong when it doesn't work the way YOU want. To do
so is, well, indolent and arrogant, eh?

I count the "number" as four or five, and if this "number" is a majority of
the group then I'm wasting my time here, and if your attitude is
representative of the majority then I'm sure wasting my time here.

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
"Einstein" wrote in message
...
I make it very easy to read my posts by
placing them at the top since that is the most obvious place to look for
them and it doesn't require someone to scroll down to read it.

Well, Mr. Einstein, if your chosen way is so superior, then why
have a NUMBER of people objected to it, and, by the looks of it,
not a single person come to your defense.

YOU don't get to choose what OTHER people find easy and then
declare THEM wrong when it doesn't work the way YOU want. To do
so is, well, indolent and arrogant, eh?

I count the "number" as four or five, and if this "number" is a majority of
the group then I'm wasting my time here, and if your attitude is
representative of the majority then I'm sure wasting my time here.

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
"Einstein" wrote in message
...
I make it very easy to read my posts by
placing them at the top since that is the most obvious place to look for
them and it doesn't require someone to scroll down to read it.

Well, Mr. Einstein, if your chosen way is so superior, then why
have a NUMBER of people objected to it, and, by the looks of it,
not a single person come to your defense.

YOU don't get to choose what OTHER people find easy and then
declare THEM wrong when it doesn't work the way YOU want. To do
so is, well, indolent and arrogant, eh?

I count the "number" as four or five, and if this "number" is a majority of
the group then I'm wasting my time here, and if your attitude is
representative of the majority then I'm sure wasting my time here.

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
"Einstein" wrote in message
...
I make it very easy to read my posts by
placing them at the top since that is the most obvious place to look for
them and it doesn't require someone to scroll down to read it.

Well, Mr. Einstein, if your chosen way is so superior, then why
have a NUMBER of people objected to it, and, by the looks of it,
not a single person come to your defense.

YOU don't get to choose what OTHER people find easy and then
declare THEM wrong when it doesn't work the way YOU want. To do
so is, well, indolent and arrogant, eh?

Einstein wrote:

I count the "number" as four or five, and if this "number" is a majority of
the group then I'm wasting my time here, and if your attitude is
representative of the majority then I'm sure wasting my time here.

You are a stupid and arrogant prick; if you had clue one about who is
Dick Pierce, you'd shut the **** up with yoru bull****. You don't have
brains enough to sharpen his pencil. If I can in any way encourage you
to simply go away, be my guest. You're right this time: you are wasting
your time here, and everywhere else, too.

--
ha

Einstein wrote:

I count the "number" as four or five, and if this "number" is a majority of
the group then I'm wasting my time here, and if your attitude is
representative of the majority then I'm sure wasting my time here.

You are a stupid and arrogant prick; if you had clue one about who is
Dick Pierce, you'd shut the **** up with yoru bull****. You don't have
brains enough to sharpen his pencil. If I can in any way encourage you
to simply go away, be my guest. You're right this time: you are wasting
your time here, and everywhere else, too.

--
ha

Einstein wrote:

I count the "number" as four or five, and if this "number" is a majority of
the group then I'm wasting my time here, and if your attitude is
representative of the majority then I'm sure wasting my time here.

You are a stupid and arrogant prick; if you had clue one about who is
Dick Pierce, you'd shut the **** up with yoru bull****. You don't have
brains enough to sharpen his pencil. If I can in any way encourage you
to simply go away, be my guest. You're right this time: you are wasting
your time here, and everywhere else, too.

--
ha

Einstein wrote:

I count the "number" as four or five, and if this "number" is a majority of
the group then I'm wasting my time here, and if your attitude is
representative of the majority then I'm sure wasting my time here.

You are a stupid and arrogant prick; if you had clue one about who is
Dick Pierce, you'd shut the **** up with yoru bull****. You don't have
brains enough to sharpen his pencil. If I can in any way encourage you
to simply go away, be my guest. You're right this time: you are wasting
your time here, and everywhere else, too.

--
ha

Einstein wrote:

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...

"Einstein" wrote in message

...

I make it very easy to read my posts by
placing them at the top since that is the most obvious place to look for
them and it doesn't require someone to scroll down to read it.

Well, Mr. Einstein, if your chosen way is so superior, then why
have a NUMBER of people objected to it, and, by the looks of it,
not a single person come to your defense.

YOU don't get to choose what OTHER people find easy and then
declare THEM wrong when it doesn't work the way YOU want. To do
so is, well, indolent and arrogant, eh?

I count the "number" as four or five, and if this "number" is a majority of
the group then I'm wasting my time here, and if your attitude is
representative of the majority then I'm sure wasting my time here.

It's quite a bit more than four or five--most of us just have better things to do than school you in basic Netiquette.

Einstein wrote:

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...

"Einstein" wrote in message

...

I make it very easy to read my posts by
placing them at the top since that is the most obvious place to look for
them and it doesn't require someone to scroll down to read it.

Well, Mr. Einstein, if your chosen way is so superior, then why
have a NUMBER of people objected to it, and, by the looks of it,
not a single person come to your defense.

YOU don't get to choose what OTHER people find easy and then
declare THEM wrong when it doesn't work the way YOU want. To do
so is, well, indolent and arrogant, eh?

I count the "number" as four or five, and if this "number" is a majority of
the group then I'm wasting my time here, and if your attitude is
representative of the majority then I'm sure wasting my time here.

It's quite a bit more than four or five--most of us just have better things to do than school you in basic Netiquette.

Einstein wrote:

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...

"Einstein" wrote in message

...

I make it very easy to read my posts by
placing them at the top since that is the most obvious place to look for
them and it doesn't require someone to scroll down to read it.

Well, Mr. Einstein, if your chosen way is so superior, then why
have a NUMBER of people objected to it, and, by the looks of it,
not a single person come to your defense.

YOU don't get to choose what OTHER people find easy and then
declare THEM wrong when it doesn't work the way YOU want. To do
so is, well, indolent and arrogant, eh?

I count the "number" as four or five, and if this "number" is a majority of
the group then I'm wasting my time here, and if your attitude is
representative of the majority then I'm sure wasting my time here.

It's quite a bit more than four or five--most of us just have better things to do than school you in basic Netiquette.

Einstein wrote:

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...

"Einstein" wrote in message

...

I make it very easy to read my posts by
placing them at the top since that is the most obvious place to look for
them and it doesn't require someone to scroll down to read it.

Well, Mr. Einstein, if your chosen way is so superior, then why
have a NUMBER of people objected to it, and, by the looks of it,
not a single person come to your defense.

YOU don't get to choose what OTHER people find easy and then
declare THEM wrong when it doesn't work the way YOU want. To do
so is, well, indolent and arrogant, eh?

I count the "number" as four or five, and if this "number" is a majority of
the group then I'm wasting my time here, and if your attitude is
representative of the majority then I'm sure wasting my time here.

It's quite a bit more than four or five--most of us just have better things to do than school you in basic Netiquette.

Einstein wrote:

Kurt, as I pointed out, bottom posting is no longer
concisdered to be proper Netiquette.

You come here, everybody tell you that you have misundertood this, and
you say that:

In fact, I contribute to quite a few groups

Which?

and this is the the first group

Protests have come from all over aapls, rap, rat, am4t and amh-s. Nobody
there have disagreed in the voiced dissatisfaction.

that has brought this up in close to a year. The last time
I saw this argument, databases were queried,

Which?, by whom?, where are the results?

and there were a couple of usenet wide surveys

They have not been usenet wide, they have not been in these groups.

published which showed that bottom posting was no longer
considered proper Netiquette,

It never was, this is the way to do it.

and while it was considered still acceptable,
it was in the distinct minority usenet wide,

In as much as this posting style is also the preferred posting style on
microsofts newsserver your claim seems to be not very credible.

and I believe it was by a factor of around 30/70.

Not beliefs, facts.

I don't remember the exact figures and I'm not about
to wast my time looking them up,

You wanna claim facts exists, provide them or provide links to them.

feel free to look yourself if you doubt me.

According to google you have posted in alt.music.home-studio,
rec.audio.pro, alt.music.4-track and rec.audio.tech. Google has 177
references to mentionings of the email-adress used in your posts. This
means that you are what you appear to be by your behavior: a newbie.

You claim that facts exist that support you, but fail to provide them
and the facts that DO exist contradict your claims.

For _that_ reason I have cross-posted this to the newsgroups google have
noticed your partipication in so that readers there can be aware of the
way facts and your statements seem to correlate.

It is, as has been pointed out over in alt.music.4-track not really on
topic in any newsgroup, so a followup-to has been added pointing to
rec.audio.tech.

If you wish to ask me a technical question concerning
studio and recording techniques, feel free to do so,

I once did make a simple request to you, no follow up from you was seen.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

Einstein wrote:

Kurt, as I pointed out, bottom posting is no longer
concisdered to be proper Netiquette.

You come here, everybody tell you that you have misundertood this, and
you say that:

In fact, I contribute to quite a few groups

Which?

and this is the the first group

Protests have come from all over aapls, rap, rat, am4t and amh-s. Nobody
there have disagreed in the voiced dissatisfaction.

that has brought this up in close to a year. The last time
I saw this argument, databases were queried,

Which?, by whom?, where are the results?

and there were a couple of usenet wide surveys

They have not been usenet wide, they have not been in these groups.

published which showed that bottom posting was no longer
considered proper Netiquette,

It never was, this is the way to do it.

and while it was considered still acceptable,
it was in the distinct minority usenet wide,

In as much as this posting style is also the preferred posting style on
microsofts newsserver your claim seems to be not very credible.

and I believe it was by a factor of around 30/70.

Not beliefs, facts.

I don't remember the exact figures and I'm not about
to wast my time looking them up,

You wanna claim facts exists, provide them or provide links to them.

feel free to look yourself if you doubt me.

According to google you have posted in alt.music.home-studio,
rec.audio.pro, alt.music.4-track and rec.audio.tech. Google has 177
references to mentionings of the email-adress used in your posts. This
means that you are what you appear to be by your behavior: a newbie.

You claim that facts exist that support you, but fail to provide them
and the facts that DO exist contradict your claims.

For _that_ reason I have cross-posted this to the newsgroups google have
noticed your partipication in so that readers there can be aware of the
way facts and your statements seem to correlate.

It is, as has been pointed out over in alt.music.4-track not really on
topic in any newsgroup, so a followup-to has been added pointing to
rec.audio.tech.

If you wish to ask me a technical question concerning
studio and recording techniques, feel free to do so,

I once did make a simple request to you, no follow up from you was seen.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

Einstein wrote:

Kurt, as I pointed out, bottom posting is no longer
concisdered to be proper Netiquette.

You come here, everybody tell you that you have misundertood this, and
you say that:

In fact, I contribute to quite a few groups

Which?

and this is the the first group

Protests have come from all over aapls, rap, rat, am4t and amh-s. Nobody
there have disagreed in the voiced dissatisfaction.

that has brought this up in close to a year. The last time
I saw this argument, databases were queried,

Which?, by whom?, where are the results?

and there were a couple of usenet wide surveys

They have not been usenet wide, they have not been in these groups.

published which showed that bottom posting was no longer
considered proper Netiquette,

It never was, this is the way to do it.

and while it was considered still acceptable,
it was in the distinct minority usenet wide,

In as much as this posting style is also the preferred posting style on
microsofts newsserver your claim seems to be not very credible.

and I believe it was by a factor of around 30/70.

Not beliefs, facts.

I don't remember the exact figures and I'm not about
to wast my time looking them up,

You wanna claim facts exists, provide them or provide links to them.

feel free to look yourself if you doubt me.

According to google you have posted in alt.music.home-studio,
rec.audio.pro, alt.music.4-track and rec.audio.tech. Google has 177
references to mentionings of the email-adress used in your posts. This
means that you are what you appear to be by your behavior: a newbie.

You claim that facts exist that support you, but fail to provide them
and the facts that DO exist contradict your claims.

For _that_ reason I have cross-posted this to the newsgroups google have
noticed your partipication in so that readers there can be aware of the
way facts and your statements seem to correlate.

It is, as has been pointed out over in alt.music.4-track not really on
topic in any newsgroup, so a followup-to has been added pointing to
rec.audio.tech.

If you wish to ask me a technical question concerning
studio and recording techniques, feel free to do so,

I once did make a simple request to you, no follow up from you was seen.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

Einstein wrote:

Kurt, as I pointed out, bottom posting is no longer
concisdered to be proper Netiquette.

You come here, everybody tell you that you have misundertood this, and
you say that:

In fact, I contribute to quite a few groups

Which?

and this is the the first group

Protests have come from all over aapls, rap, rat, am4t and amh-s. Nobody
there have disagreed in the voiced dissatisfaction.

that has brought this up in close to a year. The last time
I saw this argument, databases were queried,

Which?, by whom?, where are the results?

and there were a couple of usenet wide surveys

They have not been usenet wide, they have not been in these groups.

published which showed that bottom posting was no longer
considered proper Netiquette,

It never was, this is the way to do it.

and while it was considered still acceptable,
it was in the distinct minority usenet wide,

In as much as this posting style is also the preferred posting style on
microsofts newsserver your claim seems to be not very credible.

and I believe it was by a factor of around 30/70.

Not beliefs, facts.

I don't remember the exact figures and I'm not about
to wast my time looking them up,

You wanna claim facts exists, provide them or provide links to them.

feel free to look yourself if you doubt me.

According to google you have posted in alt.music.home-studio,
rec.audio.pro, alt.music.4-track and rec.audio.tech. Google has 177
references to mentionings of the email-adress used in your posts. This
means that you are what you appear to be by your behavior: a newbie.

You claim that facts exist that support you, but fail to provide them
and the facts that DO exist contradict your claims.

For _that_ reason I have cross-posted this to the newsgroups google have
noticed your partipication in so that readers there can be aware of the
way facts and your statements seem to correlate.

It is, as has been pointed out over in alt.music.4-track not really on
topic in any newsgroup, so a followup-to has been added pointing to
rec.audio.tech.

If you wish to ask me a technical question concerning
studio and recording techniques, feel free to do so,

I once did make a simple request to you, no follow up from you was seen.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

"Einstein" wrote in message ...
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
"Einstein" wrote in message
...
I make it very easy to read my posts by
placing them at the top since that is the most obvious place to look for
them and it doesn't require someone to scroll down to read it.

Well, Mr. Einstein, if your chosen way is so superior, then why
have a NUMBER of people objected to it, and, by the looks of it,
not a single person come to your defense.

I count the "number" as four or five,

Fine, let's take your number at four or five.

Now, Mr. Einstein, precisely how many in this thread have
defned your position? That number, save for yourself, is
precisely ZERO.

I'm wasting my time here,

No, sir, you clearly miss the point. You're wasting everybody
ELSE'S time here. And that is the very root of your problem:
you think it's all about you, whether you are wasting YOUR
time, whether YOUR method is better, that YOUR opinion is
congruent with fact.

You further completely failed to address the other comment:

YOU don't get to choose what OTHER people find easy and then
declare THEM wrong when it doesn't work the way YOU want.

Top posting is a great way of avoiding the issue, isn't it?

"Einstein" wrote in message ...
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
"Einstein" wrote in message
...
I make it very easy to read my posts by
placing them at the top since that is the most obvious place to look for
them and it doesn't require someone to scroll down to read it.

Well, Mr. Einstein, if your chosen way is so superior, then why
have a NUMBER of people objected to it, and, by the looks of it,
not a single person come to your defense.

I count the "number" as four or five,

Fine, let's take your number at four or five.

Now, Mr. Einstein, precisely how many in this thread have
defned your position? That number, save for yourself, is
precisely ZERO.

I'm wasting my time here,

No, sir, you clearly miss the point. You're wasting everybody
ELSE'S time here. And that is the very root of your problem:
you think it's all about you, whether you are wasting YOUR
time, whether YOUR method is better, that YOUR opinion is
congruent with fact.

You further completely failed to address the other comment:

YOU don't get to choose what OTHER people find easy and then
declare THEM wrong when it doesn't work the way YOU want.

Top posting is a great way of avoiding the issue, isn't it?

"Einstein" wrote in message ...
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
"Einstein" wrote in message
...
I make it very easy to read my posts by
placing them at the top since that is the most obvious place to look for
them and it doesn't require someone to scroll down to read it.

Well, Mr. Einstein, if your chosen way is so superior, then why
have a NUMBER of people objected to it, and, by the looks of it,
not a single person come to your defense.

I count the "number" as four or five,

Fine, let's take your number at four or five.

Now, Mr. Einstein, precisely how many in this thread have
defned your position? That number, save for yourself, is
precisely ZERO.

I'm wasting my time here,

No, sir, you clearly miss the point. You're wasting everybody
ELSE'S time here. And that is the very root of your problem:
you think it's all about you, whether you are wasting YOUR
time, whether YOUR method is better, that YOUR opinion is
congruent with fact.

You further completely failed to address the other comment:

YOU don't get to choose what OTHER people find easy and then
declare THEM wrong when it doesn't work the way YOU want.

Top posting is a great way of avoiding the issue, isn't it?

"Einstein" wrote in message ...
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
"Einstein" wrote in message
...
I make it very easy to read my posts by
placing them at the top since that is the most obvious place to look for
them and it doesn't require someone to scroll down to read it.

Well, Mr. Einstein, if your chosen way is so superior, then why
have a NUMBER of people objected to it, and, by the looks of it,
not a single person come to your defense.

I count the "number" as four or five,

Fine, let's take your number at four or five.

Now, Mr. Einstein, precisely how many in this thread have
defned your position? That number, save for yourself, is
precisely ZERO.

I'm wasting my time here,

No, sir, you clearly miss the point. You're wasting everybody
ELSE'S time here. And that is the very root of your problem:
you think it's all about you, whether you are wasting YOUR
time, whether YOUR method is better, that YOUR opinion is
congruent with fact.

You further completely failed to address the other comment:

YOU don't get to choose what OTHER people find easy and then
declare THEM wrong when it doesn't work the way YOU want.

Top posting is a great way of avoiding the issue, isn't it?

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 22:24:24 -0600, "Einstein"
wrote:

I count the "number" as four or five, and if this "number" is a majority of
the group then I'm wasting my time here, and if your attitude is
representative of the majority then I'm sure wasting my time here.

---
"When in Rome..." seems generally to be the least onerous way to
conduct one's self in a new environment until one becomes recognized as
a member of that environment with opinions that matter.

Being as perceptive as you claim to be, you should have noticed that
neither the form nor the content of your communications meets the
criterion outlined above, as evidenced by the protests your entries have
garnered so far.

Consequently, if you're interested in helping, I would suggest that you
follow the posting conventions which are accepted here and make your
rhetoric less confrontational.

Just a thought...

--
John Fields

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 22:24:24 -0600, "Einstein"
wrote:

I count the "number" as four or five, and if this "number" is a majority of
the group then I'm wasting my time here, and if your attitude is
representative of the majority then I'm sure wasting my time here.

---
"When in Rome..." seems generally to be the least onerous way to
conduct one's self in a new environment until one becomes recognized as
a member of that environment with opinions that matter.

Being as perceptive as you claim to be, you should have noticed that
neither the form nor the content of your communications meets the
criterion outlined above, as evidenced by the protests your entries have
garnered so far.

Consequently, if you're interested in helping, I would suggest that you
follow the posting conventions which are accepted here and make your
rhetoric less confrontational.

Just a thought...

--
John Fields

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 22:24:24 -0600, "Einstein"
wrote:

I count the "number" as four or five, and if this "number" is a majority of
the group then I'm wasting my time here, and if your attitude is
representative of the majority then I'm sure wasting my time here.

---
"When in Rome..." seems generally to be the least onerous way to
conduct one's self in a new environment until one becomes recognized as
a member of that environment with opinions that matter.

Being as perceptive as you claim to be, you should have noticed that
neither the form nor the content of your communications meets the
criterion outlined above, as evidenced by the protests your entries have
garnered so far.

Consequently, if you're interested in helping, I would suggest that you
follow the posting conventions which are accepted here and make your
rhetoric less confrontational.

Just a thought...

--
John Fields

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 22:24:24 -0600, "Einstein"
wrote:

I count the "number" as four or five, and if this "number" is a majority of
the group then I'm wasting my time here, and if your attitude is
representative of the majority then I'm sure wasting my time here.

---
"When in Rome..." seems generally to be the least onerous way to
conduct one's self in a new environment until one becomes recognized as
a member of that environment with opinions that matter.

Being as perceptive as you claim to be, you should have noticed that
neither the form nor the content of your communications meets the
criterion outlined above, as evidenced by the protests your entries have
garnered so far.

Consequently, if you're interested in helping, I would suggest that you
follow the posting conventions which are accepted here and make your
rhetoric less confrontational.

Just a thought...

--
John Fields

In article writes:

[Einstein]

You come here, everybody tell you that you have misundertood this, and
you say that:

In fact, I contribute to quite a few groups

This is the problem. He thinks he's contributing to rec.audio.pro but
he's just pollutiong it. One doesn't "contribute" to several
newsgroups by crossposting your replies to several groups, one
contributes to A NEWSGROUP by reading that newsgroup and replying
intelligently.

The only reason for cross-posting to multiple newsgroups is to make an
announcement. Discussions should be carried out in their appropriate
newsgroups among the participants of those newsgroups.

Mr. Einstein, please go away until you learn how to communicate with
others sharing Usenet. We don't need any more pontiffs here at
rec.audio.pro. We already have one Pope.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

[Einstein]

You come here, everybody tell you that you have misundertood this, and
you say that:

In fact, I contribute to quite a few groups

This is the problem. He thinks he's contributing to rec.audio.pro but
he's just pollutiong it. One doesn't "contribute" to several
newsgroups by crossposting your replies to several groups, one
contributes to A NEWSGROUP by reading that newsgroup and replying
intelligently.

The only reason for cross-posting to multiple newsgroups is to make an
announcement. Discussions should be carried out in their appropriate
newsgroups among the participants of those newsgroups.

Mr. Einstein, please go away until you learn how to communicate with
others sharing Usenet. We don't need any more pontiffs here at
rec.audio.pro. We already have one Pope.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

[Einstein]

You come here, everybody tell you that you have misundertood this, and
you say that:

In fact, I contribute to quite a few groups

This is the problem. He thinks he's contributing to rec.audio.pro but
he's just pollutiong it. One doesn't "contribute" to several
newsgroups by crossposting your replies to several groups, one
contributes to A NEWSGROUP by reading that newsgroup and replying
intelligently.

The only reason for cross-posting to multiple newsgroups is to make an
announcement. Discussions should be carried out in their appropriate
newsgroups among the participants of those newsgroups.

Mr. Einstein, please go away until you learn how to communicate with
others sharing Usenet. We don't need any more pontiffs here at
rec.audio.pro. We already have one Pope.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

[Einstein]

You come here, everybody tell you that you have misundertood this, and
you say that:

In fact, I contribute to quite a few groups

This is the problem. He thinks he's contributing to rec.audio.pro but
he's just pollutiong it. One doesn't "contribute" to several
newsgroups by crossposting your replies to several groups, one
contributes to A NEWSGROUP by reading that newsgroup and replying
intelligently.

The only reason for cross-posting to multiple newsgroups is to make an
announcement. Discussions should be carried out in their appropriate
newsgroups among the participants of those newsgroups.

Mr. Einstein, please go away until you learn how to communicate with
others sharing Usenet. We don't need any more pontiffs here at
rec.audio.pro. We already have one Pope.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Peter Larsen wrote in message

snip

Einsteins post was origionally intended for alt.music.home-studio.

Somehow your post Peter crossposted to
alt.music.home-studio,alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech.
You might have something set up in your reader doing this. Just a
heads up.

Regards
IR

Peter Larsen wrote in message

snip

Einsteins post was origionally intended for alt.music.home-studio.

Somehow your post Peter crossposted to
alt.music.home-studio,alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech.
You might have something set up in your reader doing this. Just a
heads up.

Regards
IR

Peter Larsen wrote in message

snip

Einsteins post was origionally intended for alt.music.home-studio.

Somehow your post Peter crossposted to
alt.music.home-studio,alt.music.4-track,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech.
You might have something set up in your reader doing this. Just a
heads up.

Regards
IR