«

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:50:53 -0700, richard <>
wrote:

>No error message given or indicated.

If the OP is unable to post, they'd get an error message. Your
suggestion was completely st00pid.

>Quite possible that the server itself restricted the use.

Isn't that what I said?

>On another service, I once got kicked off for some unknown reason.

Unknown to you maybe.

>When I contacted them, they said it was due to their new filter they
>were using and needed the information to help clean it up with.
>Once they put me on the "allow" list, I was fine.

Good for you.
--
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious from my e-mail address.

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:26:26 -0700, richard <>
wrote:

>Forte agent can automatically eliminate the signature if at bottom, or
>what ever is below it.

That's what BTS said.

Sheesh.
--
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious from my e-mail address.

richard wrote:

> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>> top-posting - now with a correct sig delimiter that completely
>> *trims* the quoted text, so anyone replying to your post will lose
>> all that?
>>
>> Learn how to post!
>
> Forte agent can automatically eliminate the signature if at bottom,
> or what ever is below it.

So can every other newsreader on the planet, with the major exception of
Outhouse Distress and the spawn Windows Mail.

> Actually, some years ago there was a poster in this group who had a
> vision problem and used reading software. So it became a habit for us
> to top post so she could more easily find the replies.

Then that poster was not aware of the desires of the blind - according
to this web page from the Royal National Institute for the Blind. See
the third paragraph.

http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/gey_chr0.htm

I'm not going to argue with a Royal Institute!

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows

Rôgêr wrote:

> I liked the ambiance of this group better when there weren't so many
> netkops insisting on posting one way or the other. I have no trouble
> reading top or bottom posts, not sure why there are so many anal
> posters these days.

I commented because the Slingapore guy added the sig delimiter, thereby
causing all the referenced content to be lost in a reply. The top- or
bottom-post wasn't the issue. (Well, if he wouldn't top-post, there'd
be no problem with the sig delimiter...)

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:44:59 -0400, Rôgêr <> wrote:

<snip>

>I liked the ambiance of this group better when there weren't so many
>netkops insisting on posting one way or the other. I have no trouble
>reading top or bottom posts, not sure why there are so many anal posters
>these days.

Camelot is gone into the world of dreams, and cannot come again.

--
"If there is one thing upon this earth that mankind love and admire
better than another, it is a brave man, - it is the man who dares to look
the devil in the face and tell him he is a devil." - James A. Garfield

Rôgêr wrote:

> I have no trouble
> reading top or bottom posts,

You post similarly to a top poster. You don't trim and contextualize.
You 'bottom post' untrimmed and noncontextualized just like top posters
top post nontrimmed and noncontextualized.

Just like the top poster, you hit reply and start typing without
trimming. Except the top poster starts typing at the top and you start
typing at the bottom.

The argument about the 'responsiveness' of a reply has to do with
putting it in context - not noncontexted top vs bottom.


--
Mike Easter

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:57:43 -0400, Rôgêr wrote:

> Mike Easter wrote:
>> Rôgêr wrote:
>>
>>> I have no trouble
>>> reading top or bottom posts,


< Educational stuff explaining differences between correct and incorrect
< posting styles.


>
> Mike, I think I love you. Have you ever worn light green chiffon
> negligees to bed, with soft lighting and caviar? Perhaps a little Barry
> Manilow on the stereo?

Bottom-posted that may have been, but at least it was contextualised. As
was this reply.

Aardvark wrote:

> Bottom-posted that may have been, but at least it was contextualised.
As
> was this reply.

Roger hasn't trimmed anything I've seen around here. Just because some
bottom posts may not need any trimming for context doesn't mean that
Roger should never trim.

The most legitimate argument that the top posters make is when they
setup the strawman about what is wrong with bottom posting -- which they
typically define as I do as untrimmed and needing trimming for context.
Then they can say that it is better to top post than bottom post,
because it is too much trouble to read a long conversation of
bottomposting in near realtime.


"I can't be bothered with trimming and if you don't see it my way, you
are a NetKop."



--
Mike Easter

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:19:27 -0400, Rôgêr <> wrote:

>Mara wrote:
>
>> Camelot is gone into the world of dreams, and cannot come again.
>
>I had a lot of possible retorts, but out of respect and my position in
>the community, I decided to not do it.

You're a lucky man.

--
"If there is one thing upon this earth that mankind love and admire
better than another, it is a brave man, - it is the man who dares to look
the devil in the face and tell him he is a devil." - James A. Garfield

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:36:24 -0400, Rôgêr <> wrote:

>Mike Easter wrote:

<snip>

>> "I can't be bothered with trimming and if you don't see it my way, you
>> are a NetKop."
>
>You absolutely redefine the meaning of Netkop. You are so ****ing anal
>about teaching others to post the way you want them to, you forget that
>many people are just happening by Usenet and don't know your way of
>posting. Lighten up, it won't kill you.
>
>And so what if you teach all the billions of humans to post the way you
>like it? Will the world be a better place? You do give out some good
>advice from time to time, I'll give you that. But your obsessive
>compulsion with making everyone post the way you want it negates all
>your positives. Give it a rest.

Good thing he wasn't in here (tinh) 5-10 years ago. You know. Back when it was
actually *fun.*

--
"If there is one thing upon this earth that mankind love and admire
better than another, it is a brave man, - it is the man who dares to look
the devil in the face and tell him he is a devil." - James A. Garfield