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

Apologies for the cross-posting, but I am not sure where most of the people
who respond to this are from.

Instead of Einstein coming across as arrogant, I feel that all the rest of
you who INSIST on keeping this thread going come across as anal-retentive -
As Einstein rightly proposed, if you don't like the way he posts, ignore
him. Personally I couldn't give a damn where someone posts, as long as they
post a valuable response. I am adult enough to be able to accept that
people may have different preferences to my own.

If you would rather look past whether or not anyone top- or bottom- or
mid-posts, you may all bring your blood pressure down a couple of notches.

Time to grow up and move on.

Bluesman.


"John Fields" wrote in message
...
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

Apologies for the cross-posting, but I am not sure where most of the people
who respond to this are from.

Instead of Einstein coming across as arrogant, I feel that all the rest of
you who INSIST on keeping this thread going come across as anal-retentive -
As Einstein rightly proposed, if you don't like the way he posts, ignore
him. Personally I couldn't give a damn where someone posts, as long as they
post a valuable response. I am adult enough to be able to accept that
people may have different preferences to my own.

If you would rather look past whether or not anyone top- or bottom- or
mid-posts, you may all bring your blood pressure down a couple of notches.

Time to grow up and move on.

Bluesman.


"John Fields" wrote in message
...
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

Apologies for the cross-posting, but I am not sure where most of the people
who respond to this are from.

Instead of Einstein coming across as arrogant, I feel that all the rest of
you who INSIST on keeping this thread going come across as anal-retentive -
As Einstein rightly proposed, if you don't like the way he posts, ignore
him. Personally I couldn't give a damn where someone posts, as long as they
post a valuable response. I am adult enough to be able to accept that
people may have different preferences to my own.

If you would rather look past whether or not anyone top- or bottom- or
mid-posts, you may all bring your blood pressure down a couple of notches.

Time to grow up and move on.

Bluesman.


"John Fields" wrote in message
...
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

Apologies for the cross-posting, but I am not sure where most of the people
who respond to this are from.

Instead of Einstein coming across as arrogant, I feel that all the rest of
you who INSIST on keeping this thread going come across as anal-retentive -
As Einstein rightly proposed, if you don't like the way he posts, ignore
him. Personally I couldn't give a damn where someone posts, as long as they
post a valuable response. I am adult enough to be able to accept that
people may have different preferences to my own.

If you would rather look past whether or not anyone top- or bottom- or
mid-posts, you may all bring your blood pressure down a couple of notches.

Time to grow up and move on.

Bluesman.


"John Fields" wrote in message
...
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

Iowa Recorder wrote:

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.

Yes.

You might have something set up in your reader doing this.

I added a the newsgroups intentionally, this here netscape is quite
incapable of doing anything automatic, including filtering. I did this
because he claims that he provides quality ascii and because of the poor
correlation between verifiable fact determined via google and his
claims. There doesn't seem to be much more to say based on the facts as
they are knowable nor much need to say more.

Just a heads up.

Thanks, just why did your newsreader not obey the followup-to: header
pointing at rec.audio.tech ... ?? ... all other newsgroups manually
removed from the header in spite of reading you in rec.audio.pro.

IR


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

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

Iowa Recorder wrote:

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.

Yes.

You might have something set up in your reader doing this.

I added a the newsgroups intentionally, this here netscape is quite
incapable of doing anything automatic, including filtering. I did this
because he claims that he provides quality ascii and because of the poor
correlation between verifiable fact determined via google and his
claims. There doesn't seem to be much more to say based on the facts as
they are knowable nor much need to say more.

Just a heads up.

Thanks, just why did your newsreader not obey the followup-to: header
pointing at rec.audio.tech ... ?? ... all other newsgroups manually
removed from the header in spite of reading you in rec.audio.pro.

IR


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

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

Iowa Recorder wrote:

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.

Yes.

You might have something set up in your reader doing this.

I added a the newsgroups intentionally, this here netscape is quite
incapable of doing anything automatic, including filtering. I did this
because he claims that he provides quality ascii and because of the poor
correlation between verifiable fact determined via google and his
claims. There doesn't seem to be much more to say based on the facts as
they are knowable nor much need to say more.

Just a heads up.

Thanks, just why did your newsreader not obey the followup-to: header
pointing at rec.audio.tech ... ?? ... all other newsgroups manually
removed from the header in spite of reading you in rec.audio.pro.

IR


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

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

Iowa Recorder wrote:

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.

Yes.

You might have something set up in your reader doing this.

I added a the newsgroups intentionally, this here netscape is quite
incapable of doing anything automatic, including filtering. I did this
because he claims that he provides quality ascii and because of the poor
correlation between verifiable fact determined via google and his
claims. There doesn't seem to be much more to say based on the facts as
they are knowable nor much need to say more.

Just a heads up.

Thanks, just why did your newsreader not obey the followup-to: header
pointing at rec.audio.tech ... ?? ... all other newsgroups manually
removed from the header in spite of reading you in rec.audio.pro.

IR


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

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

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...

In fact, I contribute to quite a few groups

Which?

Yeh, I was wondering that, too.

BTW, check these out (all against top posting)
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting.html
http://www.plig.net/nnq/nquote.html
http://www.html-faq.com/newsreader/?outlook
http://www.newsreaders.com/

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...

In fact, I contribute to quite a few groups

Which?

Yeh, I was wondering that, too.

BTW, check these out (all against top posting)
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting.html
http://www.plig.net/nnq/nquote.html
http://www.html-faq.com/newsreader/?outlook
http://www.newsreaders.com/

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...

In fact, I contribute to quite a few groups

Which?

Yeh, I was wondering that, too.

BTW, check these out (all against top posting)
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting.html
http://www.plig.net/nnq/nquote.html
http://www.html-faq.com/newsreader/?outlook
http://www.newsreaders.com/

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...

In fact, I contribute to quite a few groups

Which?

Yeh, I was wondering that, too.

BTW, check these out (all against top posting)
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting.html
http://www.plig.net/nnq/nquote.html
http://www.html-faq.com/newsreader/?outlook
http://www.newsreaders.com/

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 18:23:07 -0500, "Bluesman"
wrote:

Apologies for the cross-posting, but I am not sure where most of the people
who respond to this are from.

Instead of Einstein coming across as arrogant, I feel that all the rest of
you who INSIST on keeping this thread going come across as anal-retentive -

---
And _you're_ helping to bring it to an end?
---

As Einstein rightly proposed, if you don't like the way he posts, ignore
him.

---
No. He neither "rightly proposes" as you would like to suppose, nor is
ignorance a proper reponse to an error. Errors need to be corrected
instead of propagated.
---

Personally I couldn't give a damn where someone posts, as long as they
post a valuable response. I am adult enough to be able to accept that
people may have different preferences to my own.

---
Then you should be adult enough to realize that what you consider a
valuable response may seem to others to be garbage and to accept that
those with opinions about Einstein's posting preferences are as free to
criticize those preferences as you are to criticize the criticizers.
---

If you would rather look past whether or not anyone top- or bottom- or
mid-posts, you may all bring your blood pressure down a couple of notches.

---
If you'd look past the need to critcize others' criticisms, this thread
could come to the end you advocate more quickly.
---


Time to grow up and move on.

---
Lead by example.


--
John Fields

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 18:23:07 -0500, "Bluesman"
wrote:

Apologies for the cross-posting, but I am not sure where most of the people
who respond to this are from.

Instead of Einstein coming across as arrogant, I feel that all the rest of
you who INSIST on keeping this thread going come across as anal-retentive -

---
And _you're_ helping to bring it to an end?
---

As Einstein rightly proposed, if you don't like the way he posts, ignore
him.

---
No. He neither "rightly proposes" as you would like to suppose, nor is
ignorance a proper reponse to an error. Errors need to be corrected
instead of propagated.
---

Personally I couldn't give a damn where someone posts, as long as they
post a valuable response. I am adult enough to be able to accept that
people may have different preferences to my own.

---
Then you should be adult enough to realize that what you consider a
valuable response may seem to others to be garbage and to accept that
those with opinions about Einstein's posting preferences are as free to
criticize those preferences as you are to criticize the criticizers.
---

If you would rather look past whether or not anyone top- or bottom- or
mid-posts, you may all bring your blood pressure down a couple of notches.

---
If you'd look past the need to critcize others' criticisms, this thread
could come to the end you advocate more quickly.
---


Time to grow up and move on.

---
Lead by example.


--
John Fields

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 18:23:07 -0500, "Bluesman"
wrote:

Apologies for the cross-posting, but I am not sure where most of the people
who respond to this are from.

Instead of Einstein coming across as arrogant, I feel that all the rest of
you who INSIST on keeping this thread going come across as anal-retentive -

---
And _you're_ helping to bring it to an end?
---

As Einstein rightly proposed, if you don't like the way he posts, ignore
him.

---
No. He neither "rightly proposes" as you would like to suppose, nor is
ignorance a proper reponse to an error. Errors need to be corrected
instead of propagated.
---

Personally I couldn't give a damn where someone posts, as long as they
post a valuable response. I am adult enough to be able to accept that
people may have different preferences to my own.

---
Then you should be adult enough to realize that what you consider a
valuable response may seem to others to be garbage and to accept that
those with opinions about Einstein's posting preferences are as free to
criticize those preferences as you are to criticize the criticizers.
---

If you would rather look past whether or not anyone top- or bottom- or
mid-posts, you may all bring your blood pressure down a couple of notches.

---
If you'd look past the need to critcize others' criticisms, this thread
could come to the end you advocate more quickly.
---


Time to grow up and move on.

---
Lead by example.


--
John Fields

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 18:23:07 -0500, "Bluesman"
wrote:

Apologies for the cross-posting, but I am not sure where most of the people
who respond to this are from.

Instead of Einstein coming across as arrogant, I feel that all the rest of
you who INSIST on keeping this thread going come across as anal-retentive -

---
And _you're_ helping to bring it to an end?
---

As Einstein rightly proposed, if you don't like the way he posts, ignore
him.

---
No. He neither "rightly proposes" as you would like to suppose, nor is
ignorance a proper reponse to an error. Errors need to be corrected
instead of propagated.
---

Personally I couldn't give a damn where someone posts, as long as they
post a valuable response. I am adult enough to be able to accept that
people may have different preferences to my own.

---
Then you should be adult enough to realize that what you consider a
valuable response may seem to others to be garbage and to accept that
those with opinions about Einstein's posting preferences are as free to
criticize those preferences as you are to criticize the criticizers.
---

If you would rather look past whether or not anyone top- or bottom- or
mid-posts, you may all bring your blood pressure down a couple of notches.

---
If you'd look past the need to critcize others' criticisms, this thread
could come to the end you advocate more quickly.
---


Time to grow up and move on.

---
Lead by example.


--
John Fields

Bluesman wrote:

Apolpeopleeee for the cross-posting, but I am not sure where most of the
people who respond to this are from.

Instead of Einstein coming across as arrogant, I feel that all the rest of
you who INSIST on keeping this thread going come across as anal-retentive
- As Einstein rightly proposed, if you don't like the way he posts, ignore
him. Personally I couldn't give a damn where someone posts, as long as
they
post a valuable response. I am adult enough to be able to accept that
people may have different preferences to my own.


That's fine until some people decide they prefer to drive on the other side.

Ian

Bluesman wrote:

Apolpeopleeee for the cross-posting, but I am not sure where most of the
people who respond to this are from.

Instead of Einstein coming across as arrogant, I feel that all the rest of
you who INSIST on keeping this thread going come across as anal-retentive
- As Einstein rightly proposed, if you don't like the way he posts, ignore
him. Personally I couldn't give a damn where someone posts, as long as
they
post a valuable response. I am adult enough to be able to accept that
people may have different preferences to my own.


That's fine until some people decide they prefer to drive on the other side.

Ian

Bluesman wrote:

Apolpeopleeee for the cross-posting, but I am not sure where most of the
people who respond to this are from.

Instead of Einstein coming across as arrogant, I feel that all the rest of
you who INSIST on keeping this thread going come across as anal-retentive
- As Einstein rightly proposed, if you don't like the way he posts, ignore
him. Personally I couldn't give a damn where someone posts, as long as
they
post a valuable response. I am adult enough to be able to accept that
people may have different preferences to my own.


That's fine until some people decide they prefer to drive on the other side.

Ian

Bluesman wrote:

Apolpeopleeee for the cross-posting, but I am not sure where most of the
people who respond to this are from.

Instead of Einstein coming across as arrogant, I feel that all the rest of
you who INSIST on keeping this thread going come across as anal-retentive
- As Einstein rightly proposed, if you don't like the way he posts, ignore
him. Personally I couldn't give a damn where someone posts, as long as
they
post a valuable response. I am adult enough to be able to accept that
people may have different preferences to my own.


That's fine until some people decide they prefer to drive on the other side.

Ian

"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.

When making simple one sentence statements like you often do, then I would
have to agree. The previous article is for reference only, since most people
reading the thread will already have read what you are replying to.

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.

Whilst I think *progressive order* is the proper method NOT top OR bottom
posting, I don't think anyone should dictate how he posts. If they find it
so objectionable, then simply add him to the blocked senders list.
Personally I don't give a rat's one way or the other, but *I* find those who
include ALL their response at the end of a large amount of quoted text, to
be far worse than just putting it at the top.

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?

Agreed, as is insisting that everyone must follow another method simply
because they prefer it.
(And I'm not having a go at you Dick.)

TonyP.

"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.

When making simple one sentence statements like you often do, then I would
have to agree. The previous article is for reference only, since most people
reading the thread will already have read what you are replying to.

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.

Whilst I think *progressive order* is the proper method NOT top OR bottom
posting, I don't think anyone should dictate how he posts. If they find it
so objectionable, then simply add him to the blocked senders list.
Personally I don't give a rat's one way or the other, but *I* find those who
include ALL their response at the end of a large amount of quoted text, to
be far worse than just putting it at the top.

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?

Agreed, as is insisting that everyone must follow another method simply
because they prefer it.
(And I'm not having a go at you Dick.)

TonyP.

"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.

When making simple one sentence statements like you often do, then I would
have to agree. The previous article is for reference only, since most people
reading the thread will already have read what you are replying to.

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.

Whilst I think *progressive order* is the proper method NOT top OR bottom
posting, I don't think anyone should dictate how he posts. If they find it
so objectionable, then simply add him to the blocked senders list.
Personally I don't give a rat's one way or the other, but *I* find those who
include ALL their response at the end of a large amount of quoted text, to
be far worse than just putting it at the top.

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?

Agreed, as is insisting that everyone must follow another method simply
because they prefer it.
(And I'm not having a go at you Dick.)

TonyP.

"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.

When making simple one sentence statements like you often do, then I would
have to agree. The previous article is for reference only, since most people
reading the thread will already have read what you are replying to.

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.

Whilst I think *progressive order* is the proper method NOT top OR bottom
posting, I don't think anyone should dictate how he posts. If they find it
so objectionable, then simply add him to the blocked senders list.
Personally I don't give a rat's one way or the other, but *I* find those who
include ALL their response at the end of a large amount of quoted text, to
be far worse than just putting it at the top.

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?

Agreed, as is insisting that everyone must follow another method simply
because they prefer it.
(And I'm not having a go at you Dick.)

TonyP.

"TonyP" wrote in message
...

When making simple one sentence statements like you often do, then I would
have to agree. The previous article is for reference only, since most
people
reading the thread will already have read what you are replying to.

Like everything else, it all depends. If you are reading a thread from start
to finish, this might make it easier to follow. If you read a lot of threads
every day, trying to remember the context can be tough, so you end up doing
the scroll down then scroll up thing.

Personally I don't give a rat's one way or the other, but *I* find those
who
include ALL their response at the end of a large amount of quoted text, to
be far worse than just putting it at the top.

I find that hugely annoying myself.

Agreed, as is insisting that everyone must follow another method simply
because they prefer it.

Actually, I think that taking the suggestions of regulars on how to
participate is a good step. In some newsgroups people are very particular.
In other groups it's just a mess. If people gave me a hard time one way or
the other, I'd like to think I'd try to fit in. I've *never* had anybody
object to my in-line replies to snipped quotes, so it's never been an issue.

"TonyP" wrote in message
...

When making simple one sentence statements like you often do, then I would
have to agree. The previous article is for reference only, since most
people
reading the thread will already have read what you are replying to.

Like everything else, it all depends. If you are reading a thread from start
to finish, this might make it easier to follow. If you read a lot of threads
every day, trying to remember the context can be tough, so you end up doing
the scroll down then scroll up thing.

Personally I don't give a rat's one way or the other, but *I* find those
who
include ALL their response at the end of a large amount of quoted text, to
be far worse than just putting it at the top.

I find that hugely annoying myself.

Agreed, as is insisting that everyone must follow another method simply
because they prefer it.

Actually, I think that taking the suggestions of regulars on how to
participate is a good step. In some newsgroups people are very particular.
In other groups it's just a mess. If people gave me a hard time one way or
the other, I'd like to think I'd try to fit in. I've *never* had anybody
object to my in-line replies to snipped quotes, so it's never been an issue.

"TonyP" wrote in message
...

When making simple one sentence statements like you often do, then I would
have to agree. The previous article is for reference only, since most
people
reading the thread will already have read what you are replying to.

Like everything else, it all depends. If you are reading a thread from start
to finish, this might make it easier to follow. If you read a lot of threads
every day, trying to remember the context can be tough, so you end up doing
the scroll down then scroll up thing.

Personally I don't give a rat's one way or the other, but *I* find those
who
include ALL their response at the end of a large amount of quoted text, to
be far worse than just putting it at the top.

I find that hugely annoying myself.

Agreed, as is insisting that everyone must follow another method simply
because they prefer it.

Actually, I think that taking the suggestions of regulars on how to
participate is a good step. In some newsgroups people are very particular.
In other groups it's just a mess. If people gave me a hard time one way or
the other, I'd like to think I'd try to fit in. I've *never* had anybody
object to my in-line replies to snipped quotes, so it's never been an issue.

"TonyP" wrote in message
...

When making simple one sentence statements like you often do, then I would
have to agree. The previous article is for reference only, since most
people
reading the thread will already have read what you are replying to.

Like everything else, it all depends. If you are reading a thread from start
to finish, this might make it easier to follow. If you read a lot of threads
every day, trying to remember the context can be tough, so you end up doing
the scroll down then scroll up thing.

Personally I don't give a rat's one way or the other, but *I* find those
who
include ALL their response at the end of a large amount of quoted text, to
be far worse than just putting it at the top.

I find that hugely annoying myself.

Agreed, as is insisting that everyone must follow another method simply
because they prefer it.

Actually, I think that taking the suggestions of regulars on how to
participate is a good step. In some newsgroups people are very particular.
In other groups it's just a mess. If people gave me a hard time one way or
the other, I'd like to think I'd try to fit in. I've *never* had anybody
object to my in-line replies to snipped quotes, so it's never been an issue.

I don't gripe about anybody's method of posting, I just consider top posting
for simple points and in-text posting for comples/multiple points to be the
most efficient. BTW, does anybody here know what the most used news reader
is?

"Jim Carr" wrote in message
news:Wxv6c.42635$506.36974@fed1read05...
"TonyP" wrote in message
...

When making simple one sentence statements like you often do, then I
would
have to agree. The previous article is for reference only, since most
people
reading the thread will already have read what you are replying to.

Like everything else, it all depends. If you are reading a thread from
start
to finish, this might make it easier to follow. If you read a lot of
threads
every day, trying to remember the context can be tough, so you end up
doing
the scroll down then scroll up thing.

Personally I don't give a rat's one way or the other, but *I* find those
who
include ALL their response at the end of a large amount of quoted text,
to
be far worse than just putting it at the top.

I find that hugely annoying myself.

Agreed, as is insisting that everyone must follow another method simply
because they prefer it.

Actually, I think that taking the suggestions of regulars on how to
participate is a good step. In some newsgroups people are very particular.
In other groups it's just a mess. If people gave me a hard time one way or
the other, I'd like to think I'd try to fit in. I've *never* had anybody
object to my in-line replies to snipped quotes, so it's never been an
issue.

I don't gripe about anybody's method of posting, I just consider top posting
for simple points and in-text posting for comples/multiple points to be the
most efficient. BTW, does anybody here know what the most used news reader
is?

"Jim Carr" wrote in message
news:Wxv6c.42635$506.36974@fed1read05...
"TonyP" wrote in message
...

When making simple one sentence statements like you often do, then I
would
have to agree. The previous article is for reference only, since most
people
reading the thread will already have read what you are replying to.

Like everything else, it all depends. If you are reading a thread from
start
to finish, this might make it easier to follow. If you read a lot of
threads
every day, trying to remember the context can be tough, so you end up
doing
the scroll down then scroll up thing.

Personally I don't give a rat's one way or the other, but *I* find those
who
include ALL their response at the end of a large amount of quoted text,
to
be far worse than just putting it at the top.

I find that hugely annoying myself.

Agreed, as is insisting that everyone must follow another method simply
because they prefer it.

Actually, I think that taking the suggestions of regulars on how to
participate is a good step. In some newsgroups people are very particular.
In other groups it's just a mess. If people gave me a hard time one way or
the other, I'd like to think I'd try to fit in. I've *never* had anybody
object to my in-line replies to snipped quotes, so it's never been an
issue.

I don't gripe about anybody's method of posting, I just consider top posting
for simple points and in-text posting for comples/multiple points to be the
most efficient. BTW, does anybody here know what the most used news reader
is?

"Jim Carr" wrote in message
news:Wxv6c.42635$506.36974@fed1read05...
"TonyP" wrote in message
...

When making simple one sentence statements like you often do, then I
would
have to agree. The previous article is for reference only, since most
people
reading the thread will already have read what you are replying to.

Like everything else, it all depends. If you are reading a thread from
start
to finish, this might make it easier to follow. If you read a lot of
threads
every day, trying to remember the context can be tough, so you end up
doing
the scroll down then scroll up thing.

Personally I don't give a rat's one way or the other, but *I* find those
who
include ALL their response at the end of a large amount of quoted text,
to
be far worse than just putting it at the top.

I find that hugely annoying myself.

Agreed, as is insisting that everyone must follow another method simply
because they prefer it.

Actually, I think that taking the suggestions of regulars on how to
participate is a good step. In some newsgroups people are very particular.
In other groups it's just a mess. If people gave me a hard time one way or
the other, I'd like to think I'd try to fit in. I've *never* had anybody
object to my in-line replies to snipped quotes, so it's never been an
issue.

I don't gripe about anybody's method of posting, I just consider top posting
for simple points and in-text posting for comples/multiple points to be the
most efficient. BTW, does anybody here know what the most used news reader
is?

"Jim Carr" wrote in message
news:Wxv6c.42635$506.36974@fed1read05...
"TonyP" wrote in message
...

When making simple one sentence statements like you often do, then I
would
have to agree. The previous article is for reference only, since most
people
reading the thread will already have read what you are replying to.

Like everything else, it all depends. If you are reading a thread from
start
to finish, this might make it easier to follow. If you read a lot of
threads
every day, trying to remember the context can be tough, so you end up
doing
the scroll down then scroll up thing.

Personally I don't give a rat's one way or the other, but *I* find those
who
include ALL their response at the end of a large amount of quoted text,
to
be far worse than just putting it at the top.

I find that hugely annoying myself.

Agreed, as is insisting that everyone must follow another method simply
because they prefer it.

Actually, I think that taking the suggestions of regulars on how to
participate is a good step. In some newsgroups people are very particular.
In other groups it's just a mess. If people gave me a hard time one way or
the other, I'd like to think I'd try to fit in. I've *never* had anybody
object to my in-line replies to snipped quotes, so it's never been an
issue.

Einstein wrote:
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.


Who ever said that the posts were in chronological order? If I had found
your posting via google by searching for the word "stutter", I would have
found a mess of text that made no sense at all to me. The post you
permanently flung onto USENET was cluttered with extra junk headers, out of
context quotes, and a reply from you that addressed nothing at all, since
it occurred before the question had ever been asked.

Einstein, you need to watch some movies tonight. Start with "Back To The
Future", then move on to "The Terminator", and finally, rent 2001, A Space
Oddessy". Once you've gotten a grasp on 'chronological order' and
space-time, come back here and apologize to our resident blind sound guy
who by now is probably flinching every time his screen reader announces
another post from "Einstein".
--
Joel Farris
twinkledust Designs
http://twinkledust.com

AIM chat: FarrisJoel

Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
A: Why is top posting frowned upon?

Einstein wrote:
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.


Who ever said that the posts were in chronological order? If I had found
your posting via google by searching for the word "stutter", I would have
found a mess of text that made no sense at all to me. The post you
permanently flung onto USENET was cluttered with extra junk headers, out of
context quotes, and a reply from you that addressed nothing at all, since
it occurred before the question had ever been asked.

Einstein, you need to watch some movies tonight. Start with "Back To The
Future", then move on to "The Terminator", and finally, rent 2001, A Space
Oddessy". Once you've gotten a grasp on 'chronological order' and
space-time, come back here and apologize to our resident blind sound guy
who by now is probably flinching every time his screen reader announces
another post from "Einstein".
--
Joel Farris
twinkledust Designs
http://twinkledust.com

AIM chat: FarrisJoel

Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
A: Why is top posting frowned upon?

Einstein wrote:
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.


Who ever said that the posts were in chronological order? If I had found
your posting via google by searching for the word "stutter", I would have
found a mess of text that made no sense at all to me. The post you
permanently flung onto USENET was cluttered with extra junk headers, out of
context quotes, and a reply from you that addressed nothing at all, since
it occurred before the question had ever been asked.

Einstein, you need to watch some movies tonight. Start with "Back To The
Future", then move on to "The Terminator", and finally, rent 2001, A Space
Oddessy". Once you've gotten a grasp on 'chronological order' and
space-time, come back here and apologize to our resident blind sound guy
who by now is probably flinching every time his screen reader announces
another post from "Einstein".
--
Joel Farris
twinkledust Designs
http://twinkledust.com

AIM chat: FarrisJoel

Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
A: Why is top posting frowned upon?

Einstein wrote:
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.


Who ever said that the posts were in chronological order? If I had found
your posting via google by searching for the word "stutter", I would have
found a mess of text that made no sense at all to me. The post you
permanently flung onto USENET was cluttered with extra junk headers, out of
context quotes, and a reply from you that addressed nothing at all, since
it occurred before the question had ever been asked.

Einstein, you need to watch some movies tonight. Start with "Back To The
Future", then move on to "The Terminator", and finally, rent 2001, A Space
Oddessy". Once you've gotten a grasp on 'chronological order' and
space-time, come back here and apologize to our resident blind sound guy
who by now is probably flinching every time his screen reader announces
another post from "Einstein".
--
Joel Farris
twinkledust Designs
http://twinkledust.com

AIM chat: FarrisJoel

Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
A: Why is top posting frowned upon?

Once you've gotten a grasp on 'chronological order' and
space-time, come back here and apologize to our resident blind sound guy
who by now is probably flinching every time his screen reader announces
another post from "Einstein".

Knowing a little of the incredible ingenuity of blind guys, he'll have
a reader that can be set to skip all quoted material and get straight
to the new, just as I can with a glance. If not, I'm sure he'll be a
top-posting fan :-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

Once you've gotten a grasp on 'chronological order' and
space-time, come back here and apologize to our resident blind sound guy
who by now is probably flinching every time his screen reader announces
another post from "Einstein".

Knowing a little of the incredible ingenuity of blind guys, he'll have
a reader that can be set to skip all quoted material and get straight
to the new, just as I can with a glance. If not, I'm sure he'll be a
top-posting fan :-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

Once you've gotten a grasp on 'chronological order' and
space-time, come back here and apologize to our resident blind sound guy
who by now is probably flinching every time his screen reader announces
another post from "Einstein".

Knowing a little of the incredible ingenuity of blind guys, he'll have
a reader that can be set to skip all quoted material and get straight
to the new, just as I can with a glance. If not, I'm sure he'll be a
top-posting fan :-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect