XPost: comp.sci.electronics, rec.electronics, sci.electronics   
   XPost: sci.electronics.misc   
   From: krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz   
      
   On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 18:45:16 -0600, John Fields   
    wrote:   
      
   >On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 12:47:19 -0600, krw  wrote:   
   >   
   >>In article ,   
   >>jfields@austininstruments.com says...>   
   >>> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:11:42 -0600, John Fields   
   >>>  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> >On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:37:40 -0000, "Peter Hucker"    
   >>> >wrote:   
   >>> >   
   >>> >>On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:22:11 -0000, John Fields  wrote:   
   >>> >   
   >>> >>> ---   
   >>> >>> This is USENET, not email.   
   >>> >>>   
   >>> >>> Please bottom post or, when appropriate, inline post.   
   >>> >>>   
   >>> >>> JF   
   >>> >>   
   >>> >>Why do you say "not email"?  It annoys me when people top post in email   
   aswell.   
   >>> >>Email discussions often end with a few topics within them,   
   >>> >>then top posting just gets confusing.   
   >>> >   
   >>> >---   
   >>> >'Email' as in private email when the communicators know what went before   
   >>> >seems to be the convention.   
   >>> >   
   >>> >This isn't private email and, since the discussion can twist and turn in   
   >>> >time and readers can join the thread at any time, reducing the confusion   
   >>> >by in-line or bottom posting is a good thing.   
   >>>   
   >>> ---   
   >>> I almost forgot about this part:   
   >>>   
   >>> "I usually bottom post aswell, unless the thread has already been top   
   >>> posted, in which case I continue at the top to make it neater."   
   >>>   
   >>> So you support confusion for the sake of "neatness"?   
   >>>   
   >>Of course that PHucker supports confusion, though there is no   
   >>"neatness" in unlimited line lengths.  He basically doesn't care   
   >>what his readers have to go through.  *He* is more impotent.   
   >   
   >---   
   >Interestingly, reading his posts results in no "penalty" but, replying   
   >to them does in that that invokes his unlimited line length message in   
   >the "from" frame.   
      
   That depends on the newsreader and the way it's set up.  In any case   
   *his* settings are wrong, though he insists on continuing, like a   
   spoiled child.   
      
   >It's easy to fix by just mousing over to where you want the text to   
   >break and clicking.   
      
   Easier to ignore his crap.   
      
   >After that, the rest of the text shows up properly parsed, but without   
   >the sequence indicator showing up.   
   >   
   >It's easy enough to insert and fix up his post, but most of the time   
   >it's "Why bother?"   
      
   Exactly. Why bother with those who don't care about standards or their   
   readers.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)