I say - bring back the 1970's

Another API commercial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_oNzqgtWD0

I say bring it on.

Life was better back then. Didn't have to deal with all the
geo-political-muslim-security **** happening today.

Your beloved Chrysler was a lot less safe back then... (Of course that
applies to just about all cars.)

DAS
--
To reply directly replace 'nospam' with 'schmetterling'
--
"MoPar Man" > wrote in message
...
> Another API commercial:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_oNzqgtWD0
>
> I say bring it on.
>
> Life was better back then. Didn't have to deal with all the
> geo-political-muslim-security **** happening today.

On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 18:48:37 +0100, DAS wrote:

> Your beloved Chrysler was a lot less safe back then... (Of course that
> applies to just about all cars.)
>
> DAS
> --
> To reply directly replace 'nospam' with 'schmetterling' --
> "MoPar Man" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Another API commercial:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_oNzqgtWD0
>>
>> I say bring it on.
>>
>> Life was better back then. Didn't have to deal with all the
>> geo-political-muslim-security **** happening today.

Get a real newsreader and stop top-posting. It is like having the Answer
first, then the Question.
BTW, the Dodge Dart/Plymouth Valiant were some of the safest cars ever.

sctvguy1 wrote:

> Get a real newsreader and stop top-posting. It is like having
> the Answer first, then the Question.

DAS is a notorious top-poaster.

If that's not bad enough, he's also a full-quoter.

Both traits or habbits are common for e-mail, as evolved or originated
by the default behavior of Micro$haft e-mail clients (Outlook and IE).
Once that became wide-spread by usenet newbies (and especially by google
"groupers") they carried over that bad e-mail habbit to their usenet
replies.

They top-poasters don't understand how disruptive top-posting can be.
They might as well just delete any quoted material that follows if they
don't reference it properly (or at all) in their post. But they're too
lazy or inconsiderate to do that. There are many examples of horrendous
full-quoting on usenet, unfortunately.

The art of proper usenet message composition is disappearing fast, as
evidenced by DAS.

> BTW, the Dodge Dart/Plymouth Valiant were some of the safest
> cars ever.

There were just fewer cars on the road back 30, 40, 50 years ago, and
probably fewer miles driven per car per year. There's too many people
on this planet today, and that's the source of all the turmoil we're
having (but you can't tell that to christians / catholics).

I survived many a ride as a child in the front or back seat of my
parents 1967 Dodge - not even a child seat if I remember correctly, not
even a shoulder belt (that didn't happen until the early to mid 1970's)
- and (sometimes) no seat belt at all in the back seat of some of those
1960s cars. Some of them didn't even have power brakes!

Bottom posting made sense back in the days of 300 baud modems and none
GUI. It no longer makes sense. Top posting is a far more efficient
way to communicate in about 90% of the threads for about 90% of the
people reading them. People who whine about top posting are the
equivalent of those who still use Apple II computers.


On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 16:10:10 -0400, MoPar Man > wrote:

>sctvguy1 wrote:
>
>> Get a real newsreader and stop top-posting. It is like having
>> the Answer first, then the Question.
>
>DAS is a notorious top-poaster.
>
>If that's not bad enough, he's also a full-quoter.
>
>Both traits or habbits are common for e-mail, as evolved or originated
>by the default behavior of Micro$haft e-mail clients (Outlook and IE).
>Once that became wide-spread by usenet newbies (and especially by google
>"groupers") they carried over that bad e-mail habbit to their usenet
>replies.
>
>They top-poasters don't understand how disruptive top-posting can be.
>They might as well just delete any quoted material that follows if they
>don't reference it properly (or at all) in their post. But they're too
>lazy or inconsiderate to do that. There are many examples of horrendous
>full-quoting on usenet, unfortunately.
>
>The art of proper usenet message composition is disappearing fast, as
>evidenced by DAS.
>
>> BTW, the Dodge Dart/Plymouth Valiant were some of the safest
>> cars ever.
>
>There were just fewer cars on the road back 30, 40, 50 years ago, and
>probably fewer miles driven per car per year. There's too many people
>on this planet today, and that's the source of all the turmoil we're
>having (but you can't tell that to christians / catholics).
>
>I survived many a ride as a child in the front or back seat of my
>parents 1967 Dodge - not even a child seat if I remember correctly, not
>even a shoulder belt (that didn't happen until the early to mid 1970's)
>- and (sometimes) no seat belt at all in the back seat of some of those
>1960s cars. Some of them didn't even have power brakes!

Quite! But your die-hard old timers won't buy that. You can also see that
they think I am a "full quoter", whereas I am just not cutting off the
thread so one can see the context.

I must say though there are some circumstances where top-posting can be a
nuisance, and that is in web forums which reproduce these threads.
Tough....

Far worse are those who intersperse a few words of 'wisdom' in a long post
here and there, so one has to scroll down a lot to see what they are saying.
And those who reply at the bottom of long posts (without trimming them) with
some inanity like "LoL" or "I agree"...

Anyway, I give MoPar Man yet another thing to rant about.

DAS
--
To reply directly replace 'nospam' with 'schmetterling'
--
"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
...
> Bottom posting made sense back in the days of 300 baud modems and none
> GUI. It no longer makes sense. Top posting is a far more efficient
> way to communicate in about 90% of the threads for about 90% of the
> people reading them. People who whine about top posting are the
> equivalent of those who still use Apple II computers.
>
>
> On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 16:10:10 -0400, MoPar Man > wrote:
>
>>sctvguy1 wrote:
>>
>>> Get a real newsreader and stop top-posting. It is like having
>>> the Answer first, then the Question.
>>
>>DAS is a notorious top-poaster.
>>
>>If that's not bad enough, he's also a full-quoter.
>>
>>Both traits or habbits are common for e-mail, as evolved or originated
>>by the default behavior of Micro$haft e-mail clients (Outlook and IE).
>>Once that became wide-spread by usenet newbies (and especially by google
>>"groupers") they carried over that bad e-mail habbit to their usenet
>>replies.
>>
>>They top-poasters don't understand how disruptive top-posting can be.
>>They might as well just delete any quoted material that follows if they
>>don't reference it properly (or at all) in their post. But they're too
>>lazy or inconsiderate to do that. There are many examples of horrendous
>>full-quoting on usenet, unfortunately.
>>
>>The art of proper usenet message composition is disappearing fast, as
>>evidenced by DAS.
>>
>>> BTW, the Dodge Dart/Plymouth Valiant were some of the safest
>>> cars ever.
>>
>>There were just fewer cars on the road back 30, 40, 50 years ago, and
>>probably fewer miles driven per car per year. There's too many people
>>on this planet today, and that's the source of all the turmoil we're
>>having (but you can't tell that to christians / catholics).
>>
>>I survived many a ride as a child in the front or back seat of my
>>parents 1967 Dodge - not even a child seat if I remember correctly, not
>>even a shoulder belt (that didn't happen until the early to mid 1970's)
>>- and (sometimes) no seat belt at all in the back seat of some of those
>>1960s cars. Some of them didn't even have power brakes!

On 6/4/2011 6:16 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
> Bottom posting made sense back in the days of 300 baud modems and none
> GUI. It no longer makes sense. Top posting is a far more efficient
> way to communicate in about 90% of the threads for about 90% of the
> people reading them. People who whine about top posting are the
> equivalent of those who still use Apple II computers.

Agreed... But the Anally retentive are accommodated when given the
opportunity to be net nannies(SIC Nazi). ;-p

It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster

Ashton Crusher wrote:

> Bottom posting made sense back in the days of 300 baud modems
> and none GUI.

Bandwidth or connection speed has / had nothing to do with posting or
message composition style.

> It no longer makes sense.

Bottom posting and in-line quoting has always made sense.

> Top posting is a far more efficient way to communicate in
> about 90% of the threads for about 90% of the people reading
> them.

What you are referring to is really the lack of performing in-line
quoting, as I am doing here.

I am quoting selective comments that you have made in a previous post
and responding directly to them. This is known as in-line quoting. It
allows you (and anyone else) to know the exact context of what I am
writing *without* needed to guess or to read previous posts in this
thread.

> People who whine about top posting are the equivalent of those
> who still use Apple II computers.

No. People that point out the flaws of top-posting and full-quoting are
simply more intelligent people, that are able to exert a few more
micro-calories to arrange their posts as they compose their in-line
replies.

If you're going to top-post and NOT in-line quote, then there is no
purpose for you to drag / quote the entire previous post that you're
replying to into your post. It's just a waste of resources to do that.

DAS wrote:

> Quite!

Quite what? Sorry, I don't know what you're saying "Quite" to.

> But your die-hard old timers won't buy that.

What won't we buy?

Sorry, I'm not following you.

> You can also see that they think I am a "full quoter"

Which you are.

> whereas I am just not cutting off the thread so one can see the
> context.

Ah, that old gag. What a bull**** reason that is to drag the entire
previous post into your reply.

If anyone wants to see the context, then they have the entire thread at
their disposal, and they will know exactly which post you're replying
to. There is no reason to be a "full-quoter" for exactly that reason.
These are not private e-mail conversations we're having here on usenet.
That style of top-posting and full bottom-quoting is not useful for
usenet.

> Far worse are those who intersperse a few words of 'wisdom' in a
> long post here and there, so one has to scroll down a lot to see
> what they are saying.

> And those who reply at the bottom of long posts (without trimming
> them) with some inanity like "LoL" or "I agree"...

Both of those styles are (again) the result of extreme lazyness on the
part of the author who does not do the reader the courtesy to remove all
but what he is replying to.

Bottom posting while full-quoting still makes one a "full-quoter", which
as I've already stated is also poor usenet message composition style.

On Jun 5, 8:41*am, MoPar Man > wrote:

> If you're going to top-post and NOT in-line quote, then there is no
> purpose for you to drag / quote the entire previous post that you're
> replying to into your post. *It's just a waste of resources to do that.

Which resources?