Copy of email to [email protected]

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 18:23:08 GMT, Mary Pegg
> wrote:

>Andy Turner wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 17:26:30 GMT, Mary Pegg
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Andy Turner wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here's a question. When a message is cross-posted (as this thread is),
>>>> between groups, which group's standards should apply?
>>>
>>>All that are applicable. If it is not possible to post in a mutually
>>>acceptable manner, then one should not post at all.
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> So when replying to this thread, did you check the FAQs of all groups
>> it's posted to?
>
>And your point is?

Oh gawd.. is this another Peggism where I have to assume your
answer... or would I be being "tedious" (as someone else put it), were
I to attempt to wring an answer out of you?

I think my point is fairly clear, hence you avoiding answering the
question with an answer that would lead you into more hypocrisy than
ever before.

But perhaps I'll be even more explicit for you: If you haven't checked
the FAQs for all three groups, then you do not *know* that you are
posting in a mutually acceptable manner. Since you haven't checked,
then why exactly should anyone else?



andyt

On 8 Mar 2005 18:00:21 GMT, Marcus Houlden >
wrote:

>On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 10:55:35 -0500, Neil >
>wrote the following to uk.misc:
>
>
>> For everyone's benefit, there is an excellent
>> explanation of the history of top-posting and bottom-posting he
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting
>
>And a few words to describe Andy Turner he
>http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/WikiSaurus:fool
>
> He does tend to pop up when there's a row going on.
> He doesn't add anything;

Er... cos this post of yours adds *lots* to the discussion...


>he just likes moaning.

Hmmm.. given that the crux of what I'm saying is that top-posting is
nothing to moan about and that people should just stop moaning and get
on with it, I find this comment rather amusing Marcus. Perhaps you did
add something to the discussion after all - something to laugh at.


andyt

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 18:22:37 -0000, "Dori A Schmetterling"
> wrote:

>This is such a silly discussion I can't resist joining in (again).
>
>Nice extract from that Wikipedia link (edited):-
>
>Objections to top-posting, as a general rule, seem to come from persons who
>first went online in the earlier days of Usenet, and in communities that
>date to Usenet's early days, [...] . Etiquette is looser (as is almost
>everything) in the alt hierarchy. Newer online participants, especially
>those with limited experience of Usenet, tend as a general rule, to be less
>sensitive to top-posting, and tend to reject any argument against
>top-posting as irrelevant. A typical contrarian view holds that their
>software top-posts and they like it.
>
>It may be that users used to older, terminal-oriented software which was
>unable to easily show references to posts being replied to, learned to
>prefer the summary that not top-posting gives; it's also likely that the
>general slower propagation times of the original Usenet groups made that
>summary a useful reminder of older posts. As news and mail readers have
>become more capable, and as propagation times have grown shorter, newer
>users may find top-posting more efficient."

It's interesting Dori, that we've picked out similar parts of that
link. It's a refreshingly honest and subjective piece - most such
documents are written by the likes of the top-post-whiners and as such
have an agenda and simply whine in HTML form instead.

People whining about top-posting are simply old dogs incapable or
refusing to learn new tricks. The internet technologies, availability,
speed, demographics have changed massively, people just have to learn
to keep up with mutating preferences.


andyt

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 07:19:51 +0000, JAF
> wrote:

>On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 15:42:33 +0000 (UTC), Andy Turner
> wrote:
>
>>If Mary had chosen to not be so tedious with the inconclusive reply,
>>we wouldn't find ourselves here. If Mary came forward and actually
>>gave an answer, we wouldn't find ourselves here.
>
>NO, not 'we', 'you'. Everyone else seems to be perfectly happy with what
>Mary said (in the absence of any evidence to the contrary).

jaf dear, in case you didn't notice, what Mary said was in response to
*my* question - not anyone else's. Of *course* since the answer didn't
make sense, then *I* am the one likely to question it, not anyone
else.

If you're going to spout that logic, can I assume that you're
perfectly happy with every post I've made that you haven't responded
to then - "in the absence of any evidence to the contrary"?

I certainly wouldn't like the suggestion that I must be "perfectly
happy" with every post I've not responded to!

What *idiotic* logic.


> Only you are crashing about in a fog of incomprehension.

Tell you what jaf, why don't *you* explain it then. Dean's been unable
to, Mary hasn't, no-one has. But I await *your* explanation with some
glee. Blow away my "fog of incomprehension", with your insight jaf -
should be rather funny if nothing else.


> This is due to your own
> tedious ****wittery, not any deficiency on Mary's part.

It's due to the metaphor not making sense*. If you want to prove me
wrong by explaining it then go right ahead fella. I look forward to
you displaying your own brand of "tedious ****wittery", when you
wriggle out of making an explanation either by suggesting I ought to
work it out for myself, saying you can't be arsed or some other
lame-arse excuse.

* which was probably intentional because Mary realised the hypocrisy
that to answer it properly and honestly would have represented - ie
the point I was clearly moving towards.


andyt

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 07:19:51 +0000, JAF
> wrote:

>On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 15:42:33 +0000 (UTC), Andy Turner
> wrote:
>
>>If Mary had chosen to not be so tedious with the inconclusive reply,
>>we wouldn't find ourselves here. If Mary came forward and actually
>>gave an answer, we wouldn't find ourselves here.
>
>NO, not 'we', 'you'. Everyone else seems to be perfectly happy with what
>Mary said (in the absence of any evidence to the contrary). Only you are
>crashing about in a fog of incomprehension. This is due to your own
>tedious ****wittery, not any deficiency on Mary's part.

Oh, and if everyone else is happy with metaphor, how do you explain
this:

Stephen Gower:
"With that caveat established, the answer "yes" is there."

Dean Dark:
"Her answer was "no.""



andyt

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 15:49:33 -0500, Dean Dark
> wrote:

>On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 12:33:21 +0000 (UTC), Andy Turner
> wrote:
>
>>>once I did present my *subsequent* point based on *your* answer, you
>>>did get rather confused and believe it was some sort of strawman. I'd
>>>like to think you
>>>
>>Ack, I clearly hadn't finished writing that bit.. I'll try again:
>>
>>>>I have no way of knowing what your fevered mind is "moving towards"
>>>>before you have articulated (and I use the term loosely) it.
>>
>>Nope, and no-one expected you to. However, you only got confused about
>>it *after* I'd presented it (you quoted it after all..), not "before".
>>However, once I did present my *subsequent* point based on *your*
>>answer, you did get rather confused and believe it was some sort of
>>strawman WRT the original question.
>
>Since metaphor is too subtle for you

LOL! This is metaphor that you *cannot* explain! Despite being asked
three times now, you've always avoided it! Why don't you explain how
it's so subtle then eh?

Conclusion reached Dean. You claimed that an answer was given, but
when you tried to give that answer it conflicted with someone else's
stab. Then you've repeatedly avoided explaining the metaphor and then
LIED and claimed that you already had. And now you've avoided making a
simple quote of where you supposedly already had (which of course you
*had* to do, since you'd LIED).



>, I have concluded that the best
>course of action in this case is for you to bypass it and to literally
>plunge your head into a bucketful of **** and see if you gag. Please
>report back with your findings.

Very droll, very childish - and of course, simply further avoiding
making that explanation. It's all very transparent, very obvious Dean.


>This is *very important* to you, isn't it?

Not really no. But it's *most* amusing to see how you repeatedly avoid
making that explanation. Your inability to do so only further backs me
up that it doesn't make sense so I'm happy to see you avoid it over
and over again.


> I think you should have
> the last word, you'll probably burst a nut if you don't. Sad.

Actually no, I'd *love* for you to reply. Perhaps you can finally make
a stab at that explanation or maybe show some guts and admit that it
doesn't make sense. Y'know, it's allowed for you to say "actually, on
further examination I see what you mean, it doesn't quite make sense".
It's a valid alternative to all this pathetic wriggling you're doing.


I await your explanation for a *fourth* requested time now Dean. The
floor is yours.


andyt

" > wrote in message
t...
> Costing the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars, Dori A
> Schmetterling said:
>> Whatever. I manually delete the automatic insertion because some
>> people (Mozilla users all, presumably) complained they could not
>> see what was below.
>>
> Ah, you mean people who have standards-conformant newsreaders have
> trouble with posts that have the sigsep near the top...
> That's fixable, if it's due to using OE - there's a neat little
> prog called OEQuotefix
>
>
>> (Also in response to bof, who has such a great sense of humour.)
>>
>> DAS
>>
>> For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
>> ---
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> t...
>> [...]
>> >
>> > I hadn't heard that, but hey.
>> > It's hyphen hyphen space return, to be strict.
>> > If you leave out the space, standards-conformant newsreaders
>> > won't
>> > recognise it as a sigsep
>> >
>> > --
>> > tiger tiger tiger tiger tiger tiger tiger tiger tiger

And /you/ could've trimmed too.

"Dean Dark" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 12:33:21 +0000 (UTC), Andy Turner
> > wrote:

[snip]

>>Nope, and no-one expected you to. However, you only got confused
>>about it *after* I'd presented it (you quoted it after all..), not
>>"before". However, once I did present my *subsequent* point based
>>on *your* answer, you did get rather confused and believe it was
>>some sort of strawman WRT the original question.
>
> Since metaphor is too subtle for you, I have concluded that the
> best course of action in this case is for you to bypass it and to
> literally plunge your head into a bucketful of **** and see if you
> gag. Please report back with your findings.
>
> This is *very important* to you, isn't it? I think you should have
> the last word, you'll probably burst a nut if you don't. Sad.

Dean, I've no idea where you're posting from but you're a very welcome
addition to uk.misc!

In article >,
says...
>
> And /you/ could've trimmed too.

I was giving a demonstration of how awful it is when people
don't.

--
UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT
information is ENCOURAGED.

What you smell are the results of cross-posting. I don't suppose you are
based in the BMW group.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Cockburn" > wrote in message
...
[...]
>
> I'm still not sure if I can smell a Troll or not.
> (f/u set)
>
>