«

"slumpy" <> wrote in message
news:befgct$4hn8f$...
> "So, Mr Slumpy you *really* are the perpetual comedian, aren't you ?" I
> threw back my head and roared with laughter as trout continued:
>
> >>> sorry forhot to mention, also depends on your motherboard having
> >>> <snip>
> >>
> >> Why do you insist on sending what are obvious replies to the OP to
> >> Mike instead ?
> >> Why don't you just do it the same as everyone else ? It saves a lot
> >> of wasted time...
> >
> > Now, that his stubbornness has made him insist that it's a
> > legitimate 'posting style'; he can't turn back.
>
> I know a guy in another group who insists on removing all the '>'s but
> highlighting the text he is replying to by adding <<<<<<<<<<<< to the top
> line. Nobody has a clue who he is replying to, or quite what is going on
and
> despite the pleading, and the fact it would be easier not to do it his
way,
> he still argues that it looks 'tidier', and is currently KF'd by just
about
> everyone
> --
> slumpy -
> 'N all of a sudden I thought the time had come for that old song
> We used to play in Joe's Garage and if I am not wrong
> You will soon be dancin' to the . . .
>

hello

yep, there are quite a few 'styles' around, if you ignore them though and
concentrate on the content, keep an open mind and take things at face value,
this helps you understand the thread, i never have a problem with other
people's styles. i just read the whole thread thoroughly - i think thats the
problem, people are lazy and don't wish to read and learn - at the end of
the day just accept there is no right or wrong, everyones a winner. relax.

regards

"trout" <> wrote in message
news:befgj8$4hk2o$...
> Cubzilla wrote
>
> > "°Mike°" <> wrote in message
> <snip>
>
> > Plonk
>
> HA! Whooo, ha ha ha ha ha ha ahhoo, hohoo, haw.
> Poor Mike. No more advice from the giant Trevor Reservoir of Knowledge.
> --
> "Thanks. I needed a good laugh."
>
>

Still live with yer mom trout or has she kicked you out ?

somthing not right in yer head

ooyah wrote:
<snip>

> hello
>
> yep, there are quite a few 'styles' around, if you ignore them though
> and concentrate on the content, keep an open mind and take things at
> face value, this helps you understand the thread, i never have a
> problem with other people's styles. i just read the whole thread
> thoroughly - i think thats the problem, people are lazy and don't
> wish to read and learn - at the end of the day just accept there is
> no right or wrong, everyones a winner. relax.
>
> regards

I thought I'd answer this; considering the possibility that you may
have been replying to me.
Yes; if one carefully reads a thread, it's usually possible to
discern the intent of a poster. However, it's an unnecessary step. The
purpose of having general guide-lines of 'netiquette', is to take the
guess-work out of reading threads, and make the medium more accessable
to all users.
Replying directly to a poster, for example, just makes sense. The
way *you've* replied is not the worst example I've seen, but sometimes
it's done so far out of context as to be entirely pointless.
If I replied to the original poster right here; do you think it
likely he'd be reading it? He might. He might not.
This newsgroup, due to the name, and its position of being one of
the first on newsgroup lists, is also the first exposure many people
have to newsgroups. Often, what they learn 'here' about formatting a
post will serve them well in other newsgroups, and save a lot of
aggravation 'down the road'. It's just a matter of forming 'good'
habits. (Not to mention setting a good example for others that may not
be as adept as you in reading threads.)
Of course, there are no moderators in the newsgroup. You are as free
as anyone else to post in the way that you choose. You can argue with,
or ignore the people that take exception to it. You can ask them to
killfile you, if they're so annoyed.
Unfortunately, many will comply; but the subject will still come up
again and again.
--
"Suit yourself."

On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 22:41:30 +0100, ooyah wrote:

>"ooyah" <> wrote in message
>news:43GOa.5442$...
>> "°Mike°" <> wrote in message
>> news:...

<snip>
>hello again
>
>sorry forhot to mention, also depends on your motherboard having built in
>usb ports, you might however have addon usb ports, this can be a bit more
>tricky - some hardware diagnostic/identifying software might help you here
>such as :-

I see you're still too stupid to have learned to properly post a reply. °Mike°
doesn't need the information, nobody wants to read you talking to yourself, and
I certainly wouldn't trust a post by someone who can't even tell who they're
talking to. What a twit.

"Back into the bin with you. Permanently."

>
>amidiag
>sisoft sandra
>
>there are loads more of this ilk - eval, freeware etc.etc - all should help
>
>regards
>

--
"I'm all for co-ed naked spam fighting."
-- Ereshkigal, nanae, 8/05/2000

Cubzilla wrote:

> Just check how often Mike, Mara,Jimchip,Trout come together to *flame*
>
> They go back months/years spitting there venom out.

It's just hard not to notice the heavy smell of Moron in the air,
when you're around.
--
"Plonked me yet?"

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:11:14 +0100, William Poaster wrote:

>This is the Flibbydabby Dee service of the BBC, & on Tue, 8 Jul 2003 22:58:53
>+0100, Cubzilla uttered this:
>
>>
>>Yeah, he has been postin for a while, pity he has a personality problem
>>along with the other crony, aka Mara.
>>
>>It's sad that people needing support may be put off posting.
>
>The only one with a personality problem is you, who keeps morphing, Worrall.
>A typical troll tactic.
>FOAD

Isn't it funny how they resent the ones who know what they are?

"Like their whining will change the truth."

--
"I'm all for co-ed naked spam fighting."
-- Ereshkigal, nanae, 8/05/2000

On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:28:41 -0700, trout wrote:

>Cubzilla wrote
>
>> "°Mike°" <> wrote in message
><snip>
>
>> Plonk
>
> HA! Whooo, ha ha ha ha ha ha ahhoo, hohoo, haw.
>Poor Mike. No more advice from the giant Trevor Reservoir of Knowledge.

HAHAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

--
"I'm all for co-ed naked spam fighting."
-- Ereshkigal, nanae, 8/05/2000

William Poaster wrote:

> This is the Flibbydabby Dee service of the BBC, & on Tue, 8 Jul 2003
> 15:28:41
> -0700, trout uttered this:
>
>> Cubzilla wrote
>>
>>> "°Mike°" <> wrote in message
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Plonk
>>
>> HA! Whooo, ha ha ha ha ha ha ahhoo, hohoo, haw.
>> Poor Mike. No more advice from the giant Trevor Reservoir of
>> Knowledge.
>
> Yes, poor Mike! <snicker>
> With a bit of luck, I may be next! <fingers crossed>

Yes, I'm all aquiver with anticipation, myself.
Oh, noooooooooooooooooooooo.
--
"Who would be my conscience? Where could I turn?"

"trout" <> wrote in message
news:befiee$3vm0s$...
> ooyah wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > hello
> >
> > yep, there are quite a few 'styles' around, if you ignore them though
> > and concentrate on the content, keep an open mind and take things at
> > face value, this helps you understand the thread, i never have a
> > problem with other people's styles. i just read the whole thread
> > thoroughly - i think thats the problem, people are lazy and don't
> > wish to read and learn - at the end of the day just accept there is
> > no right or wrong, everyones a winner. relax.
> >
> > regards
>
> I thought I'd answer this; considering the possibility that you may
> have been replying to me.
> Yes; if one carefully reads a thread, it's usually possible to
> discern the intent of a poster. However, it's an unnecessary step. The
> purpose of having general guide-lines of 'netiquette', is to take the
> guess-work out of reading threads, and make the medium more accessable
> to all users.
> Replying directly to a poster, for example, just makes sense. The
> way *you've* replied is not the worst example I've seen, but sometimes
> it's done so far out of context as to be entirely pointless.
> If I replied to the original poster right here; do you think it
> likely he'd be reading it? He might. He might not.
> This newsgroup, due to the name, and its position of being one of
> the first on newsgroup lists, is also the first exposure many people
> have to newsgroups. Often, what they learn 'here' about formatting a
> post will serve them well in other newsgroups, and save a lot of
> aggravation 'down the road'. It's just a matter of forming 'good'
> habits. (Not to mention setting a good example for others that may not
> be as adept as you in reading threads.)
> Of course, there are no moderators in the newsgroup. You are as free
> as anyone else to post in the way that you choose. You can argue with,
> or ignore the people that take exception to it. You can ask them to
> killfile you, if they're so annoyed.
> Unfortunately, many will comply; but the subject will still come up
> again and again.
> --
> "Suit yourself."
>
>
hello

yep, i tend to agree with many of your points - support is the primary role
for this group, unmoderated support at that.

regards

On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 16:14:46 -0700, trout wrote:

>William Poaster wrote:
>
>> This is the Flibbydabby Dee service of the BBC, & on Tue, 8 Jul 2003
>> 15:28:41
>> -0700, trout uttered this:
>>
>>> Cubzilla wrote
>>>
>>>> "°Mike°" <> wrote in message
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Plonk
>>>
>>> HA! Whooo, ha ha ha ha ha ha ahhoo, hohoo, haw.
>>> Poor Mike. No more advice from the giant Trevor Reservoir of
>>> Knowledge.
>>
>> Yes, poor Mike! <snicker>
>> With a bit of luck, I may be next! <fingers crossed>
>
> Yes, I'm all aquiver with anticipation, myself.
>Oh, noooooooooooooooooooooo.
>--
>"Who would be my conscience? Where could I turn?"

I'll be happy to help you.

"I'll even furnish the beer for the celebration."

--
"I'm all for co-ed naked spam fighting."
-- Ereshkigal, nanae, 8/05/2000