Hank wrote:
Yes Who said BBQ was easy, hard work pays off !!

Please.... don't top-post.

--
Dave
Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
http://davebbq.com/

Dave Bugg wrote:
Hank wrote:
Yes Who said BBQ was easy, hard work pays off !!

Please.... don't top-post.

"Top-post?!" What about the archeology thing he has going on? Just how
long is Comcast's retention for this NG anyway, ten years?


--
Mike | Have you ever imagined a world with no
'05 BBQ070 | hypothetical situations?

Tinman wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:

Hank wrote:

Yes Who said BBQ was easy, hard work pays off !!

Please.... don't top-post.


"Top-post?!" What about the archeology thing he has going on? Just how
long is Comcast's retention for this NG anyway, ten years?


What an odd question. Google's archive is older than that.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
Tinman wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:

Hank wrote:

Yes Who said BBQ was easy, hard work pays off !!

Please.... don't top-post.


"Top-post?!" What about the archeology thing he has going on? Just
how long is Comcast's retention for this NG anyway, ten years?


What an odd question.

Do you know what a rhetorical question is?


Google's archive is older than that.

What an odd statement. Do you think I would have mentioned Comcast if he
posted from Google?


--
Mike

Tinman wrote:
Matthew L. Martin wrote:

Tinman wrote:

Dave Bugg wrote:


Hank wrote:


Yes Who said BBQ was easy, hard work pays off !!

Please.... don't top-post.


"Top-post?!" What about the archeology thing he has going on? Just
how long is Comcast's retention for this NG anyway, ten years?


What an odd question.


Do you know what a rhetorical question is?

Being rhetorical doesn't keep it from being odd.

Google's archive is older than that.


What an odd statement. Do you think I would have mentioned Comcast if he
posted from Google?

Do you know that google attempts to archive every post and they propose
to do so for as long as it makes money for them? The fact that someone
responds to a long dead thread has nothing to do with the practice of
top-posting.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

Tinman wrote:
Matthew L. Martin wrote:

Tinman wrote:

Dave Bugg wrote:


Hank wrote:


Yes Who said BBQ was easy, hard work pays off !!

Please.... don't top-post.


"Top-post?!" What about the archeology thing he has going on? Just
how long is Comcast's retention for this NG anyway, ten years?


What an odd question.


Do you know what a rhetorical question is?

Being rhetorical doesn't keep it from being odd.

Google's archive is older than that.


What an odd statement. Do you think I would have mentioned Comcast if he
posted from Google?

Do you know that google attempts to archive every post and they propose
to do so for as long as it makes money for them? The fact that someone
responds to a long dead thread has nothing to do with the practice of
top-posting.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
Tinman wrote:
Matthew L. Martin wrote:

Tinman wrote:

Dave Bugg wrote:


Hank wrote:


Yes Who said BBQ was easy, hard work pays off !!

Please.... don't top-post.


"Top-post?!" What about the archeology thing he has going on? Just
how long is Comcast's retention for this NG anyway, ten years?


What an odd question.


Do you know what a rhetorical question is?

Being rhetorical doesn't keep it from being odd.

Google's archive is older than that.


What an odd statement. Do you think I would have mentioned Comcast
if he posted from Google?

Do you know that google attempts to archive every post and they
propose to do so for as long as it makes money for them?

Noooo??!! Really?

Of course Google has absolutely nothing to do with this incident, since
the poster obviously did not post from Google; nor did he read the post
he responded to from Google. I won't get into why this might be
considered odd, as you are in apparent awe of Google's archive.


The fact
that someone responds to a long dead thread has nothing to do with
the practice of top-posting.

WTF is wrong with your comprehension skills? Did ride the short bus to
school? If you did, I'm sorry for confusing you so...


--
Mike

Tinman wrote:

WTF is wrong with your comprehension skills? Did ride the short bus to
school? If you did, I'm sorry for confusing you so...

Do you care to talk about BBQ or are you here just to waste everyone's time?

Matthew

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

Tinman wrote:

WTF is wrong with your comprehension skills? Did ride the short bus to
school? If you did, I'm sorry for confusing you so...

Do you care to talk about BBQ or are you here just to waste everyone's time?

Matthew

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
Tinman wrote:

WTF is wrong with your comprehension skills? Did ride the short bus
to school? If you did, I'm sorry for confusing you so...

Do you care to talk about BBQ or are you here just to waste
everyone's time?

Good grief. Let me make this easy for you:

1.) Some guy replies to a post that was a year and a half old. He
top-posts.

2.) Someone else chides him for the top-posting. I don't have a problem
with this, as I abhor top-posting.

3.) Regardless, I replied--sarcastically--indicating that perhaps the
bigger issue was the resurrection of a long-dead thread. Further, to
indicate where he posted from I rhetorically asked about Comcast's
retention policy. Ironically, I did this purposely, so that no one would
assume the guy accidentally replied from Google.

4.) The above, apparently, went over your head and you responded, IMO,
ignorantly--even going so far as to mention Google. And although each of
your three replies to this thread failed to discuss BBQ, you still
managed to equate not discussing BBQ with "wasting everyone's time."

So while I do read this group for BBQ, I found your replies rather
ignorant. If you are elderly, or perhaps just not very computer
literate, then I apologize.


--
Mike

Tinman wrote:

Self important tripe snipped.

Again:

Do you care to talk about BBQ or are you here just to waste
everyone's time?

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

Tinman wrote:

Self important tripe snipped.

Again:

Do you care to talk about BBQ or are you here just to waste
everyone's time?

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
Tinman wrote:

Self important tripe snipped.

Again:

Do you care to talk about BBQ or are you here just to waste
everyone's time?

You're a ****ing moron. Really.

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
Tinman wrote:

Self important tripe snipped.

Again:

Do you care to talk about BBQ or are you here just to waste
everyone's time?

You're a ****ing moron. Really.

Tinman wrote:
Matthew L. Martin wrote:

Tinman wrote:

Self important tripe snipped.

Again:

Do you care to talk about BBQ or are you here just to waste
everyone's time?


You're a ****ing moron. Really.


I guess then the answer to my question really is that you are here to
waste everyone's time. You could have said so, when asked. That would
have been polite. Oh! I'm so sorry. You haven't been polite in this
exchange at all. Why would I expect politness from you?

I guess I shouldn't, since none has been forthcoming.

HANL.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?