Top post edits, now bottom post edits, what next a white space post edit
where nothing is said because really there's nothing new from the other side
except paraphrasing what he previously said on the subject which was so
conveniently edited under the guise of chronological order but nothing more
than a vailed attempt to conceal the fact he has nothing new to say because
if he did he'd have to admit somebody else said it first and dismissed any
examples under the ubiquitous catchall theory that the chicken came first
because if it was said here it was learned or derived elsewhere contrary to
the fact that imagination and inspiration allows us to ask new questions why
certain teapots aren't more plentifull and some teas taste better with
multiple infusions for many more reasons than price ie., questions precede
discovery which allows us to say things not found elsewhere irregardless of
common public banality QED which leads me to elevate myself to the highest
status as a Google icon symbol for creating the second word or phrase never
before used on the planet in subsequent days and as a byproduct receiving a
third possible Google honoraria of the longest run on sentence where some
ingrate will have to edit the sentence which is consistent with my mantra of
always including something fresh while the only claim of fame for some leech
is tagging along for a ride on my posts but has been preceded by other
bloodsuckers who only whine and don't contribute except to say the world is
round because it is common knowledge or any other trivial mundane specious
argument you can find in any other usenet post on any subject simply used by
people who idle their cars at the gas pump who don't have a clue.

Jim

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> I completely agree with your assertion that anecdotal evidence of
> the absence of Indian teapots is more interesting than chatting
> with a store peon about multiple infusions.
>
> But the issue at hand is not whether anecdotal evidence is better
> than corporate profiteering. The issue is whether or not your posts
> are unique sources of this information. Short of direct quotation,
> they are not. After all, you got your information from somewhere or
> someone else just like the rest of us.
>
> As for being a "tic-for-tac posting perve," I didn't edit your
> message because top posting bothers me. I edited because I wanted
> to keep the text in chronological order. And I will always
> acknowledge when I have changed someone else's post - even simply
> the order. If that still bothers you...I really don't care.
>
> As for not being grateful for your advice - it wasn't advice. It
> was written to repeat an erroneous point about the inherent
> uniqueness of the information in this group. If I had asked for
> advice on where to find good tea in Vancouver, I would have
> appreciated any given. But I am not going to feign gratuity for
> something that is unsolicited and, in fact, not really assistance.
>
> --
> Derek
>
> Much work remains to be done before we can announce our total
> failure to make any progress.
>
>