Re: Can you say biggest security blunder of the 21st century to date?

Ness_net wrote:

> Do you top post your business e-mail?
>


I've been sort of wondering, remember the older snailmail? Well seems to me
that mailboxes have a door/slot in the top instead of the bottom, and mail
goes on top..... Maybe top posting is based on mail instead of email?

Do you top post your business MAIL? <--- not E-mail.....

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, Peter Pan wrote:
> I've been sort of wondering, remember the older snailmail? Well seems to me
> that mailboxes have a door/slot in the top instead of the bottom, and mail
> goes on top..... Maybe top posting is based on mail instead of email?

It's possible. Whether I top-post depends very much upon the message.

If I reply to a message and wish to address specific points of the
original message, then I edit out everything that is irrelevant to the
reply, and put my reply text immediately below the text being addressed.
This posting is an example.

Support, or other business-oriented, email is a different matter. Here,
there is a requirement to retain the complete text of the original message
(or series of messages) -- even if all you are adding is an "I agree".
In such cases, top-posting is more or less mandatory. Nobody wants to
wade through hundreds of lines of history just to get to a one-line
response -- but on the other hand there are certain contexts where you're
required to carry the history in your communications.

With all this said; in general it seems that top-posting is probably
inappropriate on most newsgroups which are "conversational" in nature.

A technical newsgroup or mailing list which carries bug reports and
support responses is a entirely different matter.

What *is* silly is the endless flaming about it. It is far more annoying
to read flames about inappropriate top-posting than it is to encounter
inappropriate top-posting.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

"Mark Crispin" <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
news:alpine.WNT.0.9999.0710231759270.420@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washignton.EDU...
> What *is* silly is the endless flaming about it. It is far more annoying to read flames about inappropriate
> top-posting than it is to encounter inappropriate top-posting.
>
> -- Mark --
>

I'll put it in context.

I have NEVER bitched about someone bottom posting...
Live and let live. I really don't care - I HAVE a life...

The self righteous know it alls DO tend to bug the crap out of me.
The dismissive "must be new or illiterate" garbage is so annoying.

Who the hell appointed them hall monitor...?

I have to agree, I really do not see how it matters whther one likes
to top post, as I myself prefer to do, bottom post or in line post.
I can see good and bad points in all of the methods. I would think
that for most people, like myself that are not 'usenet gurus', that
top posting would seem more natural, as it is more akin to the way
replying to an email is.

One question though.... Does anyone reading this, or the last 50 or so
posts know what the original topic was? Just checking... I think it
was about the i-phone, and them allowing 3rd party applications now.
Not really sure what that has to do with top posting, or for that
matter why it is even posted in alt.cellular.sprintpcs, which is what
I subscribed to, but who am I to complain? :-)


On Oct 23, 8:55 pm, "Ness_net" <rich...@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com>
wrote:
> "Mark Crispin" <M...@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
>
> news:alpine.WNT.0.9999.0710231759270.420@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washignton.EDU...
>
> > What *is* silly is the endless flaming about it. It is far more annoying to read flames about inappropriate
> > top-posting than it is to encounter inappropriate top-posting.
>
> > -- Mark --
>
> I'll put it in context.
>
> I have NEVER bitched about someone bottom posting...
> Live and let live. I really don't care - I HAVE a life...
>
> The self righteous know it alls DO tend to bug the crap out of me.
> The dismissive "must be new or illiterate" garbage is so annoying.
>
> Who the hell appointed them hall monitor...?

> On Oct 23, 8:55 pm, "Ness_net" <rich...@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com>
> wrote:
> > "Mark Crispin" <M...@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
> >
> > news:alpine.WNT.0.9999.0710231759270.420@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washignton.EDU...
> >
> > > What *is* silly is the endless flaming about it. It is far more annoying to read flames about inappropriate
> > > top-posting than it is to encounter inappropriate top-posting.
> >
> > > -- Mark --
> >
> > I'll put it in context.
> >
> > I have NEVER bitched about someone bottom posting...
> > Live and let live. I really don't care - I HAVE a life...
> >
> > The self righteous know it alls DO tend to bug the crap out of me.
> > The dismissive "must be new or illiterate" garbage is so annoying.
> >
> > Who the hell appointed them hall monitor...?

In article <1193222769.961784.219840@q3g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,
dafydd.ieuans@gmail.com says...

> I have to agree, I really do not see how it matters whther one likes
> to top post, as I myself prefer to do, bottom post or in line post.
> I can see good and bad points in all of the methods. I would think
> that for most people, like myself that are not 'usenet gurus', that
> top posting would seem more natural, as it is more akin to the way
> replying to an email is.
>
> One question though.... Does anyone reading this, or the last 50 or so
> posts know what the original topic was? Just checking... I think it
> was about the i-phone, and them allowing 3rd party applications now.
> Not really sure what that has to do with top posting, or for that
> matter why it is even posted in alt.cellular.sprintpcs, which is what
> I subscribed to, but who am I to complain? :-)

When you read a book do you read from the bottom up.

At 24 Oct 2007 07:35:57 -0400 ByTor wrote:

> When you read a book do you read from the bottom up.


No. But Usenet isn't a book. And each "page" of a book doesn't repeat
the same content of every page before it!

Since I've been following this thread since the beginning, I know the
topic, and have read most, if not all, of the previous quotes. Yet I had
to scroll through 20 lines of text I've already read to read your one-
line pearl of wisdom.

So, do us a favor- if you're going to bottom post, learn to trim, ok?

Ness_net wrote:
>
> Who the hell appointed them hall monitor...?

Obviously Bush.... From other posts it seems everything else is his fault,
so why not this too?

In article <1193222769.961784.219840@q3g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,
dafydd <dafydd.ieuans@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have to agree, I really do not see how it matters whther one likes
> to top post, as I myself prefer to do, bottom post or in line post.


top-posting once defines the poster as usenet illiterate.

top posting twice defines the poster as rude and illiterate.

top posting more than twice defines the poster as obstinately
ignorant.

--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com

At 24 Oct 2007 18:07:22 -0400 james g. keegan jr. wrote:

> top-posting once defines the poster as usenet illiterate...


While we're on the topic of "illiterate," what does ignoring basic
English rules of capitalization say about someone?

In article <9AJTi.593$Jg.468@fe095.usenetserver.com>,
elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com says...

> At 24 Oct 2007 07:35:57 -0400 ByTor wrote:
>
> > When you read a book do you read from the bottom up.
>
>
> No. But Usenet isn't a book. And each "page" of a book doesn't repeat
> the same content of every page before it!
>
> Since I've been following this thread since the beginning, I know the
> topic, and have read most, if not all, of the previous quotes. Yet I had
> to scroll through 20 lines of text I've already read to read your one-
> line pearl of wisdom.
>
> So, do us a favor- if you're going to bottom post, learn to trim, ok?
>
>

Eh dickhead, it was just a simple question, was there need fer the
sarcasm. And truth of the matter is I wasn't even replying to you now
was I? I think you're taking this way too seriously and need a break.

And don't tell me how to post asshole.

In article <L6RTi.607$mg.225@fe093.usenetserver.com>,
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

> At 24 Oct 2007 18:07:22 -0400 james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>
> > top-posting once defines the poster as usenet illiterate...
>
>
> While we're on the topic of "illiterate," what does ignoring basic
> English rules of capitalization say about someone?


it says they have been in usenet newsgroups for a very long time, for
one.

--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com

"ByTor" <ByTor@snowdog.com> wrote in message news:MlRTi.1479$lh.904@fe39.usenetserver.com...
> In article <9AJTi.593$Jg.468@fe095.usenetserver.com>,
> elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com says...
>
>> At 24 Oct 2007 07:35:57 -0400 ByTor wrote:
>>
>> > When you read a book do you read from the bottom up.
>>
>>
>> No. But Usenet isn't a book. And each "page" of a book doesn't repeat
>> the same content of every page before it!
>>
>> Since I've been following this thread since the beginning, I know the
>> topic, and have read most, if not all, of the previous quotes. Yet I had
>> to scroll through 20 lines of text I've already read to read your one-
>> line pearl of wisdom.
>>
>> So, do us a favor- if you're going to bottom post, learn to trim, ok?
>>
>>
>
> Eh dickhead, it was just a simple question, was there need fer the
> sarcasm. And truth of the matter is I wasn't even replying to you now
> was I? I think you're taking this way too seriously and need a break.
>
> And don't tell me how to post asshole.

You make the point I have been trying to.

"Don't tell me how to post"

EXACTLY!!!!!

This know it all, pretentious bullshit attitude is highly irritating.

My advice?? STFU if 'ya ain't got something to actually say

"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message news:jgkeegan-DF4159.18072224102007@individual.net...
> In article <1193222769.961784.219840@q3g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,
> dafydd <dafydd.ieuans@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have to agree, I really do not see how it matters whther one likes
>> to top post, as I myself prefer to do, bottom post or in line post.
>
>
> top-posting once defines the poster as usenet illiterate.
>
> top posting twice defines the poster as rude and illiterate.
>
> top posting more than twice defines the poster as obstinately
> ignorant.
>

Bitching incessantly about it defines the poster as a sanctimonious asshole.

Labeling someone based only because of how they post is shortsighted and close-minded.

Posting the same lame crap as the above, makes the poster a pretentious jerk.

In article <AvmdnQllz6Cqd4LanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@giganews.com>,
"Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:

> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jgkeegan-DF4159.18072224102007@individual.net...
> > In article <1193222769.961784.219840@q3g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,
> > dafydd <dafydd.ieuans@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I have to agree, I really do not see how it matters whther one likes
> >> to top post, as I myself prefer to do, bottom post or in line post.
> >
> >
> > top-posting once defines the poster as usenet illiterate.
> >
> > top posting twice defines the poster as rude and illiterate.
> >
> > top posting more than twice defines the poster as obstinately
> > ignorant.
> >
>
> Bitching incessantly about it defines the poster as a sanctimonious asshole.

then you admit you are a "sanctimonious asshole" since you have
posted on the topic far more than i have. i agree with your self
evaluation.
>
> Labeling someone based only because of how they post is shortsighted and
> close-minded.

on the contrary, it is a response to visible events, and a fair one.

> Posting the same lame crap as the above, makes the poster a pretentious jerk.

then why did you do it? are you saying you are also a "pretentious
jerk?"

you've been labeled a hypocrite before, haven't you?

--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com

"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message news:jgkeegan-9CA4DD.22194724102007@individual.net...
> In article <AvmdnQllz6Cqd4LanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@giganews.com>,

>> > top-posting once defines the poster as usenet illiterate.
>> >
>> > top posting twice defines the poster as rude and illiterate.
>> >
>> > top posting more than twice defines the poster as obstinately
>> > ignorant.
>> >
>>
>> Bitching incessantly about it defines the poster as a sanctimonious asshole.
>
> then you admit you are a "sanctimonious asshole" since you have
> posted on the topic far more than i have. i agree with your self
> evaluation.
>>
>> Labeling someone based only because of how they post is shortsighted and
>> close-minded.
>
> on the contrary, it is a response to visible events, and a fair one.
>
>> Posting the same lame crap as the above, makes the poster a pretentious jerk.
>
> then why did you do it? are you saying you are also a "pretentious
> jerk?"
>
> you've been labeled a hypocrite before, haven't you?
>

The last response is certainly predictable - and VERY typical - for a prick know it all.

YOU now take it down to the level of a 4 yr old playground spat - he said - no HE said....

The key differential here is that I didn't comment a SINGLE word on someone's
posting method until (whomever) attacked and made themselves a large PITA.

Defense vs offence - there IS a BIG difference. And it is always the same.
I have NEVER seen someone bitch about bottom posting - NEVER.

Copping an attitude of 'you are illiterate and ignorant if' is textbook net jerk.

ANY neutral party can certainly see just whom is being an ass in all of this.

And... it isn't me.

Buh Bye now - you can't play nice, so the playground is closed.

In article <b9adnWj39-h9n73anZ2dnUVZ_tqtnZ2d@giganews.com>,
"Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:

> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jgkeegan-9CA4DD.22194724102007@individual.net...
> > In article <AvmdnQllz6Cqd4LanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>
> >> > top-posting once defines the poster as usenet illiterate.
> >> >
> >> > top posting twice defines the poster as rude and illiterate.
> >> >
> >> > top posting more than twice defines the poster as obstinately
> >> > ignorant.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Bitching incessantly about it defines the poster as a sanctimonious
> >> asshole.
> >
> > then you admit you are a "sanctimonious asshole" since you have
> > posted on the topic far more than i have. i agree with your self
> > evaluation.
> >>
> >> Labeling someone based only because of how they post is shortsighted and
> >> close-minded.
> >
> > on the contrary, it is a response to visible events, and a fair one.
> >
> >> Posting the same lame crap as the above, makes the poster a pretentious
> >> jerk.
> >
> > then why did you do it? are you saying you are also a "pretentious
> > jerk?"
> >
> > you've been labeled a hypocrite before, haven't you?
> >
>
> The last response is certainly predictable - and VERY typical - for a prick
> know it all.

don't be so hard on yourself. you've recognized your flaws so,
perhaps, you can begin to correct them

> The key differential here is that I didn't comment a SINGLE word on someone's
> posting method until

which is your admission you did exactly as i said.

run along.

--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com

At 24 Oct 2007 20:31:19 -0400 james g. keegan jr. wrote:

> it says they have been in usenet newsgroups for a very long time, for
> one.

Yeah, I know, you've been posting since it used to be done with batch
cards, blah, blah.

I just appreciate the irony that the top-post police, who claim top-
posting is a crime because it runs afoul of the "natural way we read"
think typing in all lower-case doesn't interfere with readabilty. Guess
what- it does. Decades of reading the written word makes the abandonment
of grammatical rules jarring and akward. It's 2007- ASCII includes both
kinds of letters these days.

In reality the two are intertwined in a way- the bottom-posting
preference has nothing to do with readability, it's just a long-standing
tradition, and "old-timers" abhor nothing as much as a newbie, or those
they perceive as a newbie.

I generally bottom-post because I always have, but top-posting certainly
doesn't offend me. A smart top-post beats a stupid bottom-post any day
of the week.

In article <OPidnUTeQLeCd4LanZ2dnUVZ_sSlnZ2d@giganews.com>,
richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com says...
>
> "ByTor" <ByTor@snowdog.com> wrote in message news:MlRTi.1479$lh.904@fe39.usenetserver.com...
> > In article <9AJTi.593$Jg.468@fe095.usenetserver.com>,
> > elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com says...
> >
> >> At 24 Oct 2007 07:35:57 -0400 ByTor wrote:
> >>
> >> > When you read a book do you read from the bottom up.
> >>
> >>
> >> No. But Usenet isn't a book. And each "page" of a book doesn't repeat
> >> the same content of every page before it!
> >>
> >> Since I've been following this thread since the beginning, I know the
> >> topic, and have read most, if not all, of the previous quotes. Yet I had
> >> to scroll through 20 lines of text I've already read to read your one-
> >> line pearl of wisdom.
> >>
> >> So, do us a favor- if you're going to bottom post, learn to trim, ok?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Eh dickhead, it was just a simple question, was there need fer the
> > sarcasm. And truth of the matter is I wasn't even replying to you now
> > was I? I think you're taking this way too seriously and need a break.
> >
> > And don't tell me how to post asshole.
>
> You make the point I have been trying to.
>
> "Don't tell me how to post"
>
> EXACTLY!!!!!
>
> This know it all, pretentious bullshit attitude is highly irritating.
>
> My advice?? STFU if 'ya ain't got something to actually say

Oh I'm used to the morons trust me.....Try taking a look in the binary
newsgroups and all the critics & control freaks that try & *teach*
proper posting.....LOL

In article <duWTi.751$Ig.676@fe117.usenetserver.com>,
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

> At 24 Oct 2007 20:31:19 -0400 james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>
> > it says they have been in usenet newsgroups for a very long time, for
> > one.
>
> Yeah, I know, you've been posting since it used to be done with batch
> cards, blah, blah.
>
> I just appreciate the irony that the top-post police, who claim top-
> posting is a crime because it runs afoul of the "natural way we read"
> think typing in all lower-case doesn't interfere with readabilty.


some people may think that. others know it.


> Guess what- it does.

your assertion, unsupported, doesn't mean very much.


> Decades of reading the written word makes the abandonment
> of grammatical rules jarring and akward. It's 2007- ASCII includes both
> kinds of letters these days.


your opinion is not support.


> In reality the two are intertwined in a way- the bottom-posting
> preference has nothing to do with readability, it's just a long-standing
> tradition, and "old-timers" abhor nothing as much as a newbie, or those
> they perceive as a newbie.

newbie's make ignorant mistakes that are easily corrected. that's not
so bad.

obstinately ignorant people continue to make mistakes which they know
are mistakes.

--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com

james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:

> newbie's make ignorant mistakes

Oh! The irony...


--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 24 Oct 2007 18:07:22 -0400 james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>
>> top-posting once defines the poster as usenet illiterate...
>
>
> While we're on the topic of "illiterate," what does ignoring basic
> English rules of capitalization say about someone?

Usenet was started by unix nerds. unix nerds don't capitalize. That's
tradition.

--
One meter, to within 0.0125% accuracy (off by just under .005 inches):
Three feet
Three inches
Three eights of an inch

In article <1i6kc0d.1r4hpi2glhw2eN%notinuse2@btinternet.com >,
notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:

> james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > newbie's make ignorant mistakes
>
> Oh! The irony...

Now, that was funny.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

ByTor wrote:
> In article <9AJTi.593$Jg.468@fe095.usenetserver.com>,
> elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com says...
>
>> At 24 Oct 2007 07:35:57 -0400 ByTor wrote:
>>
>>> When you read a book do you read from the bottom up.

Gee, I'm sort of wondering when you "post" a letter in the mailbox, do you
put it in the slot up top, or bring a hacksaw/drill to open the bottom so
you can shove it on the bottom?

In article <5od8ncFm3kcrU1@mid.individual.net>,
PeterPanNOSPAM@AkamailNOSPAM.com says...

> ByTor wrote:
> > In article <9AJTi.593$Jg.468@fe095.usenetserver.com>,
> > elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com says...
> >
> >> At 24 Oct 2007 07:35:57 -0400 ByTor wrote:
> >>
> >>> When you read a book do you read from the bottom up.
>
> Gee, I'm sort of wondering when you "post" a letter in the mailbox, do you
> put it in the slot up top, or bring a hacksaw/drill to open the bottom so
> you can shove it on the bottom?

I guess that would be kinda funny eh........

Well as I only asked a question, innocently, maybe I should throw in a
sort of explanation.

When a thread is added on, yes some do keep the content without
snipping. The *whole* dialogue, in case I missed the first OP, I find,
can be read much easier on who is replying to who reading from the top
down rather than the bottom up. Now in the case of a top poster, very
very small population of **newsgroups**, it throws the thread off. I
don't care either way cus I will continue to do what appears to be the
*predominant* way of posting in the NG's. This is not an email group, or
a mailbox. I only show the respect of what is **more** consistently
done. In a way it's being a positive conformist and I respect the
**predominant** method. If people wanna do it *different* go right
ahead. I've been in NG's a loooooooong time and bottom posting takes the
cake so to speak. It's almost the same as idiots posting MTK to binary
newsgroups, get with the times.

But as I said, I don't care either way & won't spend my life arguing it.
The above is my opinion on my take on the situation. I could give a rats
ass how people post. Personally, I ignore top posters because its a pain
in the ass for me and I don't want to be bothered with fixing the thread
when I reply. Many many requests & conversations I ignore because of it
when I'm involved with binary groups.

ByTor wrote:
> PeterPanNOSPAM@AkamailNOSPAM.com says...
>> ByTor wrote:
>> >>> When you read a book do you read from the bottom up.
>>
>> Gee, I'm sort of wondering when you "post" a letter in the mailbox, do you
>> put it in the slot up top, or bring a hacksaw/drill to open the bottom so
>> you can shove it on the bottom?
>
> I guess that would be kinda funny eh........

When you get on a horse, do you get on from the top or bottom? Neither!
You get on from the side! So side-posting is the way to go. Except that
when you go into orbit, do you approach the orbit from above or below?
And when popcorn pops, is it the top kernels or the bottom kernels that
pop first?

What the hell does any of this, especially putting letters in mailboxes,
have to do with top-posting?

Top posting started when Microsoft made their stupid broken news software
and people were too lazy to do a couple of extra clicks to circumvent the
brokenness. It's that simple.

--
One meter, to within 0.0125% accuracy (off by just under .005 inches):
Three feet
Three inches
Three eights of an inch

In article <8dg9v4-05c.ln1@remote.clifto.com>,
clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote:

> ByTor wrote:
> > PeterPanNOSPAM@AkamailNOSPAM.com says...
> >> ByTor wrote:
> >> >>> When you read a book do you read from the bottom up.
> >>
> >> Gee, I'm sort of wondering when you "post" a letter in the mailbox, do you
> >> put it in the slot up top, or bring a hacksaw/drill to open the bottom so
> >> you can shove it on the bottom?
> >
> > I guess that would be kinda funny eh........
>
> When you get on a horse, do you get on from the top or bottom? Neither!
> You get on from the side! So side-posting is the way to go. Except that
> when you go into orbit, do you approach the orbit from above or below?
> And when popcorn pops, is it the top kernels or the bottom kernels that
> pop first?
>
> What the hell does any of this, especially putting letters in mailboxes,
> have to do with top-posting?
>
> Top posting started when Microsoft made their stupid broken news software
> and people were too lazy to do a couple of extra clicks to circumvent the
> brokenness. It's that simple.


yes it is. making matters worse, internet access was expanding
exponentially at that time and scads of illiterates, both in general
and usenet-illiterates discovered the internet and had no one to
mentor them.

even then, most were sufficiently wise to stop top posting as soon as
someone explained it to them.

--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com

daffydd does bring about a good question, while the 14 year olds fight over
how to post, what was this originally about many weeks ago?

And yes you may not be 14, you might be a sad 35 year old still living in
your mom's basement. Any idea why or much too busy prepping your costume for
the Trekkie convention?

"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-7A7963.23023224102007@individual.net...
> In article <b9adnWj39-h9n73anZ2dnUVZ_tqtnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> "Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:jgkeegan-9CA4DD.22194724102007@individual.net...
>> > In article <AvmdnQllz6Cqd4LanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>
>> >> > top-posting once defines the poster as usenet illiterate.
>> >> >
>> >> > top posting twice defines the poster as rude and illiterate.
>> >> >
>> >> > top posting more than twice defines the poster as obstinately
>> >> > ignorant.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Bitching incessantly about it defines the poster as a sanctimonious
>> >> asshole.
>> >
>> > then you admit you are a "sanctimonious asshole" since you have
>> > posted on the topic far more than i have. i agree with your self
>> > evaluation.
>> >>
>> >> Labeling someone based only because of how they post is shortsighted
>> >> and
>> >> close-minded.
>> >
>> > on the contrary, it is a response to visible events, and a fair one.
>> >
>> >> Posting the same lame crap as the above, makes the poster a
>> >> pretentious
>> >> jerk.
>> >
>> > then why did you do it? are you saying you are also a "pretentious
>> > jerk?"
>> >
>> > you've been labeled a hypocrite before, haven't you?
>> >
>>
>> The last response is certainly predictable - and VERY typical - for a
>> prick
>> know it all.
>
> don't be so hard on yourself. you've recognized your flaws so,
> perhaps, you can begin to correct them
>
>> The key differential here is that I didn't comment a SINGLE word on
>> someone's
>> posting method until
>
> which is your admission you did exactly as i said.
>
> run along.
>
> --
> "New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
> been warned."
> -- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
> in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com
>
>

*illiterate top post reformatted as a courtesy to readers*

In article
<vKsUi.280602$ax1.199081@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"William Sheehan, Jr." <w.sheehan@remove.worldnet dot att dot net>
wrote:
>
> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jgkeegan-7A7963.23023224102007@individual.net...
> > In article <b9adnWj39-h9n73anZ2dnUVZ_tqtnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> > "Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:jgkeegan-9CA4DD.22194724102007@individual.net...
> >> > In article <AvmdnQllz6Cqd4LanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> >>
> >> >> > top-posting once defines the poster as usenet illiterate.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > top posting twice defines the poster as rude and illiterate.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > top posting more than twice defines the poster as obstinately
> >> >> > ignorant.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Bitching incessantly about it defines the poster as a sanctimonious
> >> >> asshole.
> >> >
> >> > then you admit you are a "sanctimonious asshole" since you have
> >> > posted on the topic far more than i have. i agree with your self
> >> > evaluation.
> >> >>
> >> >> Labeling someone based only because of how they post is shortsighted
> >> >> and
> >> >> close-minded.
> >> >
> >> > on the contrary, it is a response to visible events, and a fair one.
> >> >
> >> >> Posting the same lame crap as the above, makes the poster a
> >> >> pretentious
> >> >> jerk.
> >> >
> >> > then why did you do it? are you saying you are also a "pretentious
> >> > jerk?"
> >> >
> >> > you've been labeled a hypocrite before, haven't you?
> >> >
> >>
> >> The last response is certainly predictable - and VERY typical - for a
> >> prick
> >> know it all.
> >
> > don't be so hard on yourself. you've recognized your flaws so,
> > perhaps, you can begin to correct them
> >
> >> The key differential here is that I didn't comment a SINGLE word on
> >> someone's
> >> posting method until
> >
> > which is your admission you did exactly as i said.
> >
> > run along.
>
> daffydd does bring about a good question, while the 14 year olds fight over
> how to post, what was this originally about many weeks ago?
>
> And yes you may not be 14, you might be a sad 35 year old still living in
> your mom's basement. Any idea why or much too busy prepping your costume for
> the Trekkie convention?

thus, my comments are validated. *smirk*

--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com

What was validated... that you are a sad 35 year old living in your mothers
basement? Or you have nothing to worry about but the latest klingon
dictionary and who posts where?

Sorry got to go, big people stuff to do and all!!


"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-B10A96.18032526102007@individual.net...
> *illiterate top post reformatted as a courtesy to readers*
>
> In article
> <vKsUi.280602$ax1.199081@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "William Sheehan, Jr." <w.sheehan@remove.worldnet dot att dot net>
> wrote:
>>
>> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:jgkeegan-7A7963.23023224102007@individual.net...
>> > In article <b9adnWj39-h9n73anZ2dnUVZ_tqtnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> > "Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:jgkeegan-9CA4DD.22194724102007@individual.net...
>> >> > In article <AvmdnQllz6Cqd4LanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> >>
>> >> >> > top-posting once defines the poster as usenet illiterate.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > top posting twice defines the poster as rude and illiterate.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > top posting more than twice defines the poster as obstinately
>> >> >> > ignorant.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Bitching incessantly about it defines the poster as a sanctimonious
>> >> >> asshole.
>> >> >
>> >> > then you admit you are a "sanctimonious asshole" since you have
>> >> > posted on the topic far more than i have. i agree with your self
>> >> > evaluation.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Labeling someone based only because of how they post is
>> >> >> shortsighted
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> close-minded.
>> >> >
>> >> > on the contrary, it is a response to visible events, and a fair one.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Posting the same lame crap as the above, makes the poster a
>> >> >> pretentious
>> >> >> jerk.
>> >> >
>> >> > then why did you do it? are you saying you are also a "pretentious
>> >> > jerk?"
>> >> >
>> >> > you've been labeled a hypocrite before, haven't you?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> The last response is certainly predictable - and VERY typical - for a
>> >> prick
>> >> know it all.
>> >
>> > don't be so hard on yourself. you've recognized your flaws so,
>> > perhaps, you can begin to correct them
>> >
>> >> The key differential here is that I didn't comment a SINGLE word on
>> >> someone's
>> >> posting method until
>> >
>> > which is your admission you did exactly as i said.
>> >
>> > run along.
>>
>> daffydd does bring about a good question, while the 14 year olds fight
>> over
>> how to post, what was this originally about many weeks ago?
>>
>> And yes you may not be 14, you might be a sad 35 year old still living in
>> your mom's basement. Any idea why or much too busy prepping your costume
>> for
>> the Trekkie convention?
>
> thus, my comments are validated. *smirk*
>
> --
> "New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
> been warned."
> -- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
> in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com
>
>

In article <OHlVi.33147$kj1.50@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"William Sheehan, Jr." <w.sheehan@remove.worldnet dot att dot net>
wrote:

> What was validated... that you are a sad 35 year old living in your mothers
> basement? Or you have nothing to worry about but the latest klingon
> dictionary and who posts where?
>
> Sorry got to go, big people stuff to do and all!!
>
>
Hmm, another guy obsessing about the thought of a guy living in his
mother's basement.
What is it with this group?

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"