On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:46:44 GMT, cl > wrote:
>
>"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote:
>
>> Do it again, Pro. Come up with some ridiculous, meaningless
>> "challenge" that you think will finally get me to tell you what you
>> want to know.
>
>Ridiculous in just asking for proof of the statement that you do more
>than remedial tasks at the state college? Especially when you protest to
>be much greater.

My God but you're predictable. You did exactly as you were told. What
should I make you do next?

HINT: Request for Consideration!

>> Bear in mind, though, that doing the same thing over and
>> over while expecting different results is one sign of insanity.
>
>It is the first time kevie that I asked your for your pubs. Hearing
>voices and false reality is a sign of insanity too you know? But hey,
>with you I'd just apply Occam's razor and decide you just a liar.

Why are you talking like Tarzan, Pro?

Lie about what? Of course, you can furnish some message IDs, right?

"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:46:44 GMT, cl > wrote:
> >
> >"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote:
> My God but you're predictable. You did exactly as you were told. What
> should I make you do next?

I think you should convince me to call you a clueless dipshit. Damn you
did it again!


> HINT: Request for Consideration!

Yeah, keep trying to pass it off Prof. You are transparent and your
constant reiteration of RFC and your mistakened understanding of its
meaning is obvious.

> >> Bear in mind, though, that doing the same thing over and
> >> over while expecting different results is one sign of insanity.
> >
> >It is the first time kevie that I asked your for your pubs. Hearing
> >voices and false reality is a sign of insanity too you know? But hey,
> >with you I'd just apply Occam's razor and decide you just a liar.
>
> Why are you talking like Tarzan, Pro?


NOTE: For those keeping tabs on Kevinisms, be sure to register "talking
like Tarzan". We need to also include "mouthbreather" too.


> Lie about what? Of course, you can furnish some message IDs, right?

Are you a black man today? I could and have. While that copy machine is
churning out SHRM flyer for the HR kids, you can do a google for the
IDs.

-CAL

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:13:33 GMT, cl > wrote:

>> HINT: Request for Consideration!
>
>Yeah, keep trying to pass it off Prof. You are transparent and your
>constant reiteration of RFC and your mistakened understanding of its
>meaning is obvious.

If 12 people tell you you're an ass, it's time to get fitted for a
saddle. If even more people tell you -- often in words of one or two
syllables -- that you've been trolled, then YHBT and YHL. You just
cannot admit that all of ARK was laughing at you behind your back.
Humorless git, aren't you?

Guess I'll just have to troll you again. 'Tweren't at all difficult
the first time.

PS: Did you know that the word "gullible" isn't in a single
dictionary?

Steve House wrote:

> And this should bother me exactly why?

Maybe because Matthew is a valued part of this group, he knows what he is
talking about, and you do not?

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

--


"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
> Steve House wrote:
>
> > And this should bother me exactly why?
>
> Maybe because Matthew is a valued part of this group, he knows what he is
> talking about, and you do not?
>

For someone who's claims to have been on usenet since the '80's he's a bit
slow on the uptake isn't he?

Steve, I'll use monosyllabic words as much as possible: when someone
"plonks" you, that means you have entered their killfile, a.k.a. bozo bin
and will not read any of your witty retorts ever again, the poor souls. So
aiming barbs at them is a complete waste of time. But you're already
overfamiliar with that concept aren't you?

The only reason I saw your scribble is from Dave's post as I too have
decided my life will be just a little brighter without your contentious
self.

I look forward to not reading your reply.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 18:44:37 -0500, "Steve House"
> wrote:

>I stand corrected, you did say "...please stop top posting ..." so perhaps
>"strongly worded request" would be more accurate. And even the phrase
>"strongly worded" is an assumption of your emotional state when you wrote
>it. But based on the fact that you mentioned at all, or actually even give
>a damn whether someone top posts or not, gives me pause to wonder why it
>would even be an issue?

The way in which Usenet posts are propogated makes it almost certain
that someone will see your reply before seeing the message you're
replying to. In such cases, the reader has to scroll down to figure
out what the hell you're talking about. Even if readers have seen the
original message, they might not recall it with any accuracy, meaning
that they have to scroll down to refresh their memory, as they will
have to do if they wish to know what part of the original post you are
replying. That's rude, because it implies that your time and
convenience are more important than that of your reader.

>Perhaps it is the tradition in this group to
>interleave post, but the negative response to someone top posting, even
>taking notice of it or mentioning it at all, demonstrates an unwillingness
>to recognize that the circumstances under which the dislike of top posting
>evolved no longer exist.

See above. Same answer..

> I suggest that while interleaved posting was the
>probably the "best way" 20 years ago, today the advantages of top posting
>outweigh its disadvantages most of the time. (See how much more readable
>this is than it would be if I broke it into several fragments? As a writer
>I'm sure you recognize that a coherent paragraph beats fragmented sentences
>ever time.

You have a bad habit of trying to bolster your argument with loaded
language and false premises, beginning with your claim that I
"ordered" someone not to top-post. Now you want to pretend that the
argument is about "coherent paragraphs" versus "fragmented sentences."
You are doing the rhetorical equivalent of waving something shiny
through the air and saying, "Hey! Look over here!"

It ain't working, so you might as well stop doing it.

See that big chunk of text up there? That's a coherent paragraph. So
is the one-line paragraph that follows. They are also interleaved to
make clear that they are responses to some specific PART of what you
posted. You cannot pretend you don't understand that making clear that
connection is the whole purpose of interleaving, unlike in your
earlier attempt to portray interleaving as confusing by randomly
inserting your comments into the original post and even into my .sig.

> And as a tech writer, I'm sure you've read letters, comments,
>and rebuttles in journals such as Nature for years - why should Usenet
>posting be structured differently? )

Because every medium has its own conventions and because every writing
situation requires its own strategies for achieving a particular
purpose while meeting the readers' needs for information. Just because
many media use similar conventions and many writing situations call
for similar strategies is no reason to insist that they all do so.

After nearly 20 years of writing and editing and teaching thousands of
people about writing and editing, I think I can recognize an effective
rhetorical strategy when I see one -- and top-posting and full-quoting
is not an effective rhetorical strategy, not by a long shot.

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
> Steve House wrote:
>
>> And this should bother me exactly why?
>
> Maybe because Matthew is a valued part of this group, he knows what he is
> talking about, and you do not?
>
> --
> Dave
> Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
> http://davebbq.com/
>

I seeee - one should simply sit quietly at the feet of the Usenet Masters,
emulate their every style, and learn.

Are you suggesting top posters have nothing of value to contribute to the
group, simply by virtue of their top posting?

Just speaking for myself, the issue is not one of whether top posting is
better or worse than other styles. Frankly, for reasons I won't repeat, I
think top posting and reasonably full quoting leads to a more coehesive
exchange of ideas. But in terms of what others post I could care less one
way or the other. The real issue in my argument is the attempt to enforce a
standard that has no bearing at all on the quality of the group, with no
other justification than "that's the way it's supposed to be done." I have
to wonder why people such as Matthew and Kevin actually CARE so much about
something so trivial. Now if it was something like seriously suggesting
smoking a brisket over smouldering flowers of sulphur, it would make sense
to strongly criticise such foolishness. But to get so worked up over
whether additions to a thread should be at the top or the bottom of a reply
message, caring SO MUCH about it as to castigate (excuse me, "correct")
those who do it differently, seems more than a bit .... obsessive, wouldn't
you agree?

>"... he knows what he is talking about and you do not."

As to 'que, I'll grant that point no contest - I have no idea of the extent
of Matthew's or Kevin's or your culinary knowledge but in comparison with
many here I'll freely admit my knowledge of the fine art of barbeque is very
likely rudimentary. That's why I'm here - to extend it. But in terms of
knowing what Usenet is about and how to use it effectively, that is another
story. I mentioned once before that I've been an active contributor, on
close to a daily basis, with Usenet and similar discussion groups and SIGs
in other online networks since 1982 and today I consider active particpation
in several groups to be an essential part of my professional life. In terms
of what written structures work to communicate most effectively in the
online community and what doesn't, I respectfully claim my qualifications
are second to none. And as an FYI, in many of the various professional
business and technical interest topic areas top-posting is the norm rather
than the exception, for the very reason that the discussions merit more
serious attention than is possible with a snip of text here and a spot of
text there.

Steve

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:39:04 -0500, "Steve House"
> wrote:

> I have
>to wonder why people such as Matthew and Kevin actually CARE so much about
>something so trivial.

Apparently you missed my post in which I explained at some length why
top-posting is both stupid and rude. The fact that you failed to see
my post only proves part of my point, that the way messages are
propogated almost guarantees that someone will have not seen the
message to which you are replying, forcing them to scroll down to find
out what the hell you're talking about.

Or did you already see me say that, but chose to ignore it? Either
way, here it is again:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 18:44:37 -0500, "Steve House"
> wrote:

>I stand corrected, you did say "...please stop top posting ..." so perhaps
>"strongly worded request" would be more accurate. And even the phrase
>"strongly worded" is an assumption of your emotional state when you wrote
>it. But based on the fact that you mentioned at all, or actually even give
>a damn whether someone top posts or not, gives me pause to wonder why it
>would even be an issue?

The way in which Usenet posts are propogated makes it almost certain
that someone will see your reply before seeing the message you're
replying to. In such cases, the reader has to scroll down to figure
out what the hell you're talking about. Even if readers have seen the
original message, they might not recall it with any accuracy, meaning
that they have to scroll down to refresh their memory, as they will
have to do if they wish to know what part of the original post you are
replying. That's rude, because it implies that your time and
convenience are more important than that of your reader.

>Perhaps it is the tradition in this group to
>interleave post, but the negative response to someone top posting, even
>taking notice of it or mentioning it at all, demonstrates an unwillingness
>to recognize that the circumstances under which the dislike of top posting
>evolved no longer exist.

See above. Same answer..

> I suggest that while interleaved posting was the
>probably the "best way" 20 years ago, today the advantages of top posting
>outweigh its disadvantages most of the time. (See how much more readable
>this is than it would be if I broke it into several fragments? As a writer
>I'm sure you recognize that a coherent paragraph beats fragmented sentences
>ever time.

You have a bad habit of trying to bolster your argument with loaded
language and false premises, beginning with your claim that I
"ordered" someone not to top-post. Now you want to pretend that the
argument is about "coherent paragraphs" versus "fragmented sentences."
You are doing the rhetorical equivalent of waving something shiny
through the air and saying, "Hey! Look over here!"

It ain't working, so you might as well stop doing it.

See that big chunk of text up there? That's a coherent paragraph. So
is the one-line paragraph that follows. They are also interleaved to
make clear that they are responses to some specific PART of what you
posted. You cannot pretend you don't understand that making clear that
connection is the whole purpose of interleaving, unlike in your
earlier attempt to portray interleaving as confusing by randomly
inserting your comments into the original post and even into my .sig.

> And as a tech writer, I'm sure you've read letters, comments,
>and rebuttles in journals such as Nature for years - why should Usenet
>posting be structured differently? )

Because every medium has its own conventions and because every writing
situation requires its own strategies for achieving a particular
purpose while meeting the readers' needs for information. Just because
many media use similar conventions and many writing situations call
for similar strategies is no reason to insist that they all do so.

After nearly 20 years of writing and editing and teaching thousands of
people about writing and editing, I think I can recognize an effective
rhetorical strategy when I see one -- and top-posting and full-quoting
is not an effective rhetorical strategy, not by a long shot.

"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:39:04 -0500, "Steve House"
> > wrote:
>
>> I have
>>to wonder why people such as Matthew and Kevin actually CARE so much about
>>something so trivial.
>
> Apparently you missed my post in which I explained at some length why
> top-posting is both stupid and rude. The fact that you failed to see
> my post only proves part of my point, that the way messages are
> propogated almost guarantees that someone will have not seen the
> message to which you are replying, forcing them to scroll down to find
> out what the hell you're talking about.
>
> Or did you already see me say that, but chose to ignore it? Either
> way, here it is again:
>

I saw it and read it completely but chose not to dissect it and reply to it.
As I said, the crux of the discussion IMO is not whether it is better or
worse to top post. The issue is that fact that some people actually CARE
about something so trivial as to ignore the substance of the messages and
jump on the poster's form in creating them. My post was not intended to say
you "should" top post. Rather it was to say you should stop making an issue
of it by admonishing top posters you encounter to stop the practice. Your
preference for interleaved posting is your preference and as such is neither
good nor bad, it simply is your preference. You go to great lengths to try
to demonstrate why it is "stupid" and "rude" to top post but in the end it
really is only a prejudice that is no more rational than any other
prejudice. Their preference for top posting is neither good nor bad, it is
simply their preference. There are also strong arguments in favor of top
posting which you choose to turn a blind eye to, especially in longer
threads. (Witness above where you have to count the >>> to determine what
you said and what I said.) Both methods work, both methods can get the
point across. Would it be such a great sacrifice to ignore it when you
encounter it and focus on the substance of the message? I find it odd that
you feel so strongly about it that you feel compelled to get everyone else
to follow your example. It costs you nothing to read posts in either style.
So why bother suggesting to top posters that they revise their errant ways
and instead let evolution take its natural course?

Steve House

Steve House wrote:

> The issue is that fact that some people
> actually CARE about something so trivial as to ignore the substance
> of the messages and jump on the poster's form in creating them.

The issue is, Steve, that most folks here have dealt with this issue many
times and the message is the same: The text and substance needs to be
readable and coherent in relation to previous posts. Function IS a matter of
form for a text-based medium.

> My
> post was not intended to say you "should" top post. Rather it was to
> say you should stop making an issue of it by admonishing top posters
> you encounter to stop the practice.

And yet you make it an issue that readability --- or rather the lack
thereof --- is not an issue.

> Your preference for interleaved
> posting is your preference and as such is neither good nor bad, it
> simply is your preference.

Wrongo. It is gooooooood. Your equivalency argument is meaningless, and
indeed, demonstrates an absurd self-centerdness.

> You go to great lengths to try to
> demonstrate why it is "stupid" and "rude" to top post but in the end
> it really is only a prejudice that is no more rational than any other
> prejudice.

Wow. The sad, simple truth is, you actually believe using a term like
"prejudice", in order to bolster your argument, is rational. ROTFLOL!!!!!

> Their preference for top posting is neither good nor bad,
> it is simply their preference.

There you go with that equivalency nonsense again. Top posting makes
coherent text in a thread incredibly difficult and tedious to follow, so it
is not preferable. You keep trying to make what is an issue of readability,
into an issue of morality. No wonder you are confused about the proper
context in which a word like "prejudice" is properly used.

> There are also strong arguments in
> favor of top posting which you choose to turn a blind eye to,
> especially in longer threads.

Longer threads are far more subject to a new reader becoming lost as to
context when top-posting is done. It also makes it difficult to determine
just what point is being responded to for those following the thread.


> (Witness above where you have to count
> the >>> to determine what you said and what I said.)

And just how is that avoided with top-posting? What you are now conflicted
about is the issue of trimming the text of the post to which you are
responding of superflous text. But then, since you don't see this as a need
when you top-post, you have two issues that make a top-posted mesage
difficult to follow: The answer preceeding the question or statement; And
the statement or question to which you are responding being buried under
tons of verbage.

> Both methods
> work, both methods can get the point across.

That's not the issue. The issue is which method makes it more difficult or
less difficult to keep the text in contextual relationship.

> Would it be such a
> great sacrifice to ignore it when you encounter it and focus on the
> substance of the message?

The better question is this: Wouldn't a reader want to insure the
readability of his post? Is his selfish need to top-post more important
than the proper conventions established to make a text-based medium more ---
not less --- comprehensible?

> I find it odd that you feel so strongly
> about it that you feel compelled to get everyone else to follow your
> example.

And yet, you feel even more compelled to get everyone to follow your
anarchist tendencies by blathering on about equivalencies and prejudice.
What you have spent so much time defending makes it much harder for a thread
to be followed. Ya know, it ain't Kevin. Take a poll asking this NG what
format they prefer. I did when another person a couple of years back
presented the same illogical arguments you now are doing, claiming that it
was only one or two folks trying to enslave others to obey their will. Ya
know what? Except for four or so individuals, everyone else preferred
interleaved or bottom posting. So go ahead, take a poll. See if this is
only a Kevin thing.

> It costs you nothing to read posts in either style.

Yes it does. It costs me more time and consternation trying to figure out
just what the heck the top-poster is really responding to.

> So why
> bother suggesting to top posters that they revise their errant ways
> and instead let evolution take its natural course?

Only someone defending top-posting would propose an evolutionary change
PRIOR to the mitigating force. Evolution is always preceeded by some force
that requires such a change.
--
Dave
Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
http://davebbq.com/

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 13:59:54 -0500, "Steve House"
> wrote:

>So why bother suggesting to top posters that they revise their errant ways
>and instead let evolution take its natural course?

Are you being willfully obtuse, or do you really not understand that I
think top-posting is rude because it implies that the poster's time
and convenience is more important than that of his readers'?
Top-posters are nearly always also full-quoters, too lazy or stupid to
snip irrelevant text or move their cursor to where it belongs.

But I've told you that already, about a half-dozen times.

"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
...

> top-posting is rude because it implies that the poster's time
> and convenience is more important than that of his readers'

Is that any less rude than you thinking that your constant inane and off
topic blathering is beneficial to this NG? You have to be one of the most
self absorbed ****tards on Usenet. You can simply KF top posters, but your
insatiable ego forever compels you to respond and perpetuate this useless,
pointless bullshit.

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
> Steve House wrote:
>

Goll darn, that interleaved stuff read just like a back and forth
conversation!

Dave, he's not interested in the topic, just in arguing.

--

B wrote:

> Is that any less rude than you thinking that your constant inane and
> off topic blathering is beneficial to this NG?

As opposed to your on-topic blathering?

> You have to be one of
> the most self absorbed ****tards on Usenet.

Oh, I somehow doubt that. Self-absorption seems to be the domain of those
who only care about ignoring useful standards intended to keep Usenet from
becoming Uselessnet.

> You can simply KF top
> posters,

That's assuming that the top-poster actually wants to be kill-filed rather
than be told that the majority does not like top-posting. And the majority
will KF the unrepentant top-poster. Why would you want to let folks be kf'd
rather than getting them on-board?

> but your insatiable ego forever compels you to respond and
> perpetuate this useless, pointless bullshit.

And your ego and perpetuation is above reproach in this regard? Why not KF
Kevin instead of ranting about him? I doubt that Kevin is going away
anytime soon.

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

Duwop wrote:

> Goll darn, that interleaved stuff read just like a back and forth
> conversation!
>
> Dave, he's not interested in the topic, just in arguing.

Yeah, I know..... I'm a bit bored right now. My crew is so well-honed at
this point that I can leave 'em be between lunch and dinner time. My taxes
are done; I've finished putting together a new ad campaign, as well as
getting copies of our menus into the local motels. There are no maintenance
issues right now. So I'm relaxing abit, hence catching up with you guys a
bit.

It's good to see you all.

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

Duwop wrote:

> Goll darn, that interleaved stuff read just like a back and forth
> conversation!
>
> Dave, he's not interested in the topic, just in arguing.

Yeah, I know..... I'm a bit bored right now. My crew is so well-honed at
this point that I can leave 'em be between lunch and dinner time. My taxes
are done; I've finished putting together a new ad campaign, as well as
getting copies of our menus into the local motels. There are no maintenance
issues right now. So I'm relaxing abit, hence catching up with you guys a
bit.

It's good to see you all.

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

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 15:17:32 -0800, "Dave Bugg" >
wrote:

> Why not KF
>Kevin instead of ranting about him?

Oh, you caught that too, huh? Smoke came out of the back of my Irony
Meter when I got to the part where he was telling me to killfile
people whose posts I didn't want to read, all the while telling me how
much he dislikes reading my posts.

I don't think he's the sharpest Crayola in the 48-piece fun pack.

> I doubt that Kevin is going away anytime soon.

Why should I? I'm enjoying myself, same as you.

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
> Duwop wrote:
>
> > Goll darn, that interleaved stuff read just like a back and forth
> > conversation!
> >
> > Dave, he's not interested in the topic, just in arguing.
>
> Yeah, I know..... I'm a bit bored right now. My crew is so well-honed at
> this point that I can leave 'em be between lunch and dinner time.

And BONUS, living in a small town you should enjoy much lower employee
turnover too.
How far away is the next town big enough to support an operation like yours
again? Bet it's too far to be a reasonable drive away, too bad.

I won't ask if your glad you did it, not just yet. Remind me to at about the
18 month mark would ya?


D
--

Duwop wrote:

> I won't ask if your glad you did it, not just yet. Remind me to at
> about the 18 month mark would ya?

Sure will, but right now I just wonder what took me so long to do this. :-)
--
Dave
Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
http://davebbq.com/

"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 15:17:32 -0800, "Dave Bugg" >
> wrote:
>
> > Why not KF
> >Kevin instead of ranting about him?
>
> Oh, you caught that too, huh?

And why do you feel you must blather on rather than just KFing
topposting full quoters?




> I don't think he's the sharpest Crayola in the 48-piece fun pack.

Dude come on, you can't even wait a week before using the Crayola line
again?



-CAL

"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 15:17:32 -0800, "Dave Bugg" >
> wrote:
>
> > Why not KF
> >Kevin instead of ranting about him?
>
> Oh, you caught that too, huh?

And why do you feel you must blather on rather than just KFing
topposting full quoters?




> I don't think he's the sharpest Crayola in the 48-piece fun pack.

Dude come on, you can't even wait a week before using the Crayola line
again?



-CAL

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:47:25 GMT, cl > wrote:
>
>"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 15:17:32 -0800, "Dave Bugg" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Why not KF
>> >Kevin instead of ranting about him?
>>
>> Oh, you caught that too, huh?
>
>And why do you feel you must blather on rather than just KFing
>topposting full quoters?
>
Knowing that it makes you stammer and sniff and cry like a scared
schoolgirl is reason enough. Keep it up, Pro.
>
>
>> I don't think he's the sharpest Crayola in the 48-piece fun pack.
>
>Dude come on, you can't even wait a week before using the Crayola line
>again?
>
And do continue to hang on my every word.