Chip with simple program for Toy

[Josepi]

Dimentia becoming aproblem?

"daestrom" <daestrom@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hi5krt1u7r@news1.newsguy.com...
Fred Abse wrote:

On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 12:52:55 -0600, amdx wrote:

Your NOT sticking with the crowd. Take some time and read some groups,
you will find the convention is bottom posting.
Regulars don't use browsers for a newsgroup, they use a newsreader.

He's using Outhouse Excuse. That ain't no browser.

It's not even a very good news-reader ;-)

AFAIK, you can't use OE as a 'browser' to surf the WWW :-/

daestrom

 

[Michael B]

Go to the medical boards sometime.
Arthritis, chronic pain, cancer, etc.
See if your >99% observation applies.
When economy of movement, as well
as a small group that knows what has
come before, top posting is most practical.

Hmm, now that I think of it, there is an
enormous number of specific-interest
groups, more being formed all the time.
That would suggest top posting being
more appropriate, along with ignoring
self-appointed net-cops that want to try
to force a practice they know to be
archaic and clumsy.

On Dec 23 2009, 12:56 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com>
wrote:

My position and that of probably >>99% of USENET is that bottom and
in-line posting is much more efficacious and considerate to readers than
top posting, so your disagreeing with that position is tantamount to
your declaring "Your format is wrong", which hoists you on your own
petard and brands _you_ as the lazy troll losing the argument.

 

[Josepi]

Unbelievable. I didn't have to mouse scroll down and then back up again to
see if I missed anything...

and look! You header, and JF's is with your text and the one before it are
all in order.

I have seen many articles on top posting and it seems it will be the way of
the future once people get more modern Usenet browsers that can actually not
mix up the posting. Funny how these obstinates can use top posting everyday
for business email and then totally switch when posting in a forum like
Usenet.

I have used a few different newsgroup browsers and they all position the
curser at the top. There are always special keystrokes to get to the bottom
but then you have to backtrack to find the top of the entry. Even the
signatures lines are handled by deleting them. So many groups use this
method now with the exception of a few old farts from the outdated IRC...LOL

This should have them cringing in their boots. I used the words "browser",
"forum" and a few others that the "everbody has to be like me" trolls like
to cling onto...LOL

Have a good one.



"Michael B" <baughfam@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:76754153-f710-4fd0-8a3c-e30d5bca5dc8@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Go to the medical boards sometime.
Arthritis, chronic pain, cancer, etc.
See if your >99% observation applies.
When economy of movement, as well
as a small group that knows what has
come before, top posting is most practical.

Hmm, now that I think of it, there is an
enormous number of specific-interest
groups, more being formed all the time.
That would suggest top posting being
more appropriate, along with ignoring
self-appointed net-cops that want to try
to force a practice they know to be
archaic and clumsy.

On Dec 23 2009, 12:56 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com>
wrote:
My position and that of probably >>99% of USENET is that bottom and
in-line posting is much more efficacious and considerate to readers than
top posting, so your disagreeing with that position is tantamount to
your declaring "Your format is wrong", which hoists you on your own
petard and brands _you_ as the lazy troll losing the argument.

 

Josepi wrote:

Unbelievable. I didn't have to mouse scroll down and then back up again to
see if I missed anything...

and look! You header, and JF's is with your text and the one before it are
all in order.

I have seen many articles on top posting and it seems it will be the way of
the future once people get more modern Usenet browsers that can actually not
mix up the posting. Funny how these obstinates can use top posting everyday
for business email and then totally switch when posting in a forum like
Usenet.

I have used a few different newsgroup browsers and they all position the
curser at the top. There are always special keystrokes to get to the bottom
but then you have to backtrack to find the top of the entry. Even the
signatures lines are handled by deleting them. So many groups use this
method now with the exception of a few old farts from the outdated IRC...LOL

This should have them cringing in their boots. I used the words "browser",
"forum" and a few others that the "everbody has to be like me" trolls like
to cling onto...LOL

Have a good one.

Usenet reads like a book, top posters are a pain in the ass. Doesn't
matter anyway, usenet is dead

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 16:46:45 -0800 (PST), Michael B
<baughfam@bellsouth.net> wrote:

On Dec 24 2009, 11:21 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com
wrote:

As usual, when you try to give one of the mentally deficient
Google-groupers a hand by clueing them in to USENET etiquette they fight
tooth and nail to remain clueless and self-absorbed.

JF

No, and we also don't need to become acquainted with
the intricate aspects of buggy-whip manufacture.

---
You already have, since you've latched on to an "old" posting style
which is convenient for email tete-a-tete where the participants are
privy know what went before.

It's not convenient for USENET however and, as much as you rail against
it, bottom and inline posting is considered de rigueur by most of the
grown-ups on USENET who are interested in making their communications as
clear, cogent, and unhostile as possible.

You and your ilk, on the other hand, seem to be intent on getting
attention by being as annoying as you possibly can and having disdain
heaped on you as a "reward" since you have, obviously, nothing of any
value to share with the group yet want desperately to be considered
important.
---

Some people adapt to changing times, others cling to
the habits they learned to barely survive as others
pass them by.

---
Some people, like you, try to make things change for the sole purpose of
trying to prove to yourselves that you're _not_ impotent when, if you
had any sense, would realize really how far off the mark you are.
---

You cling, and seek to be buddies with other trailer-
park refugees whose only value is to provide amusement,
and protein if things get tough.

---
As usual, more of the tawdry, knuckle-dragging blather you seem to think
is clever.

Oh, well, at least you're harmless.

BTW, I fixed your top-posting faux pas so that everyone can more easily
read your trash.

That's what you want, isn't it?

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 21:39:38 -0500, "Josepi" <JRM@invaliid.con> wrote:

As seasoned and thinking Usenet operators we should know better than to
respond to the age old classic troll of posting style.

---
"Seasoned and thinking Usenet operators"???

Shirley you must be joking.

No matter how you try to cut it, your "defense" of an atrocious and
contrived USENET posting style coupled with your obvious lack of
knowledge of the origins of USENET brands you as an ignorant
"johnny-come-lately" narcissistic troublemaker with no real interest in
anything other than self-aggrandization at the cost of others.

JF

 

Josepi wrote:

Exactly, so why would you start at the bottom with your post?

Bottom posting arguments and other general stupidity is killing it.



nospam@nevis.com> wrote in message news:4b46a039@news.x-privat.org...
Usenet reads like a book, top posters are a pain in the ass. Doesn't
matter anyway, usenet is dead

Because that's how one reads, from the beginning of a story to the end.
Each post is like a conversation in a novel. Someone coming late to a
thread can follow the whole conversation from the start and be up to
speed by what has transpired before.

Usenet is dead because most ISP's no longer offer it for free, and
technology has moved on with new shiny toys that take no brains at all
to use.

 

[Josepi]

Exactly, so why would you start at the bottom with your post?

Bottom posting arguments and other general stupidity is killing it.



<nospam@nevis.com> wrote in message news:4b46a039@news.x-privat.org...
Usenet reads like a book, top posters are a pain in the ass. Doesn't
matter anyway, usenet is dead


Josepi wrote:
Unbelievable. I didn't have to mouse scroll down and then back up again to
see if I missed anything...

and look! You header, and JF's is with your text and the one before it are
all in order.

I have seen many articles on top posting and it seems it will be the way of
the future once people get more modern Usenet browsers that can actually not
mix up the posting. Funny how these obstinates can use top posting everyday
for business email and then totally switch when posting in a forum like
Usenet.

I have used a few different newsgroup browsers and they all position the
curser at the top. There are always special keystrokes to get to the bottom
but then you have to backtrack to find the top of the entry. Even the
signatures lines are handled by deleting them. So many groups use this
method now with the exception of a few old farts from the outdated IRC...LOL

This should have them cringing in their boots. I used the words "browser",
"forum" and a few others that the "everbody has to be like me" trolls like
to cling onto...LOL

Have a good one.

 

[Fred Abse]

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 18:06:58 -0500, Josepi wrote:

Dimentia becoming aproblem?

I don' have two minds, only one.

I think you meant "dementia"


--
"Electricity is of two kinds, positive and negative. The difference
is, I presume, that one comes a little more expensive, but is more
durable; the other is a cheaper thing, but the moths get into it."
(Stephen Leacock)

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2010-01-08, Josepi <JRM@invaliid.con> wrote:

Unbelievable. I didn't have to mouse scroll down and then back up again to
see if I missed anything...

if you have to do that you are using the wrong newsreader, or using it
incorrectly.

and look! You header, and JF's is with your text and the one before it are
all in order.

no, they aren't visible at all.

I have seen many articles on top posting and it seems it will be the way of
the future once people get more modern Usenet browsers that can actually not
mix up the posting. Funny how these obstinates can use top posting everyday
for business email and then totally switch when posting in a forum like
Usenet.

there is no requirement to top post in email.

I have used a few different newsgroup browsers and they all position the
curser at the top.

that way I can cursor down throught the message and delete the
unwanted parts and reply to the bits that need attention.


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 18:13:23 -0800 (PST), Michael B
<baughfam@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Go to the medical boards sometime.
Arthritis, chronic pain, cancer, etc.
See if your >99% observation applies.
When economy of movement, as well
as a small group that knows what has
come before, top posting is most practical.

---
Please...

Holding down a scroll key to get to the beginning of a top-posted series
of articles is at least 50% less efficacious than having the oldest
article on top since once you've read the stack and gotten to the bottom
you can type your article there instead of having to scroll back to the
top to do it.

You're right about one thing though, and that's that groups which orient
themselves as if they were email and either pretend or are stupid enough
to think that everyone knows what went before should probably stick to
the email format instead of burdening themselves with learning how to
post properly.

Even Google Groups, that bastion for the clueless states, from:

http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=12348&topic=250

"Summarize what you're following up.

When you click "Reply" under "show options" to follow up an existing
article, Google Groups includes the full article in quotes, with the
cursor at the top of the article. Tempting though it is to just start
typing your message, please STOP and do two things first.
Look at the quoted text and remove parts that are irrelevant.
Then, go to the BOTTOM of the article and start typing there.
Doing this makes it much easier for your readers to get through your
post. They'll have a reminder of the relevant text before your
comment, but won't have to re-read the entire article.
And if your reply appears on a site before the original article does,
they'll get the gist of what you're talking about."

So, you see, even though you pretend to fight valiantly, tooth and nail,
to defend your untenable position, in truth you're reduced yourself to
nothing more than a laughingstock low-grade troll since even the lowest
common denominator is apprised of proper usenetiquette, which you choose
to flaunt for the sole purpose of attracting unwarranted attention by
tilting at windmills and fomenting trouble.
---

Hmm, now that I think of it, there is an
enormous number of specific-interest
groups, more being formed all the time.
That would suggest top posting being
more appropriate,

---
As well as being a red herring, that statement is false since bottom and
in-line posting, when appropriate, is the posting style of choice for
anyone who reads from left to right and from top to bottom.

Just think about how you're reading this sentence; are you starting from
the eroteme and reading back back?

I don't think so, ergo: "as above, so below".
---

along with ignoring
self-appointed net-cops that want to try
to force a practice they know to be
archaic and clumsy.

---
I'd say that applied more to you than to me since I'm merely defending
Google Groups' sage advice while (unless you're trying to troll, which
is more likely) you're trying to tear down a practice which serves
USENET in good stead and replace it with an onerous non-solution to a
non-problem.

Key phrase here is: "Don't fix it if it ain't broke." while what you
seem to be saying is: "If it works, break it so I can have my way."

Amazing what you creeps try to get away with, yes?

JF

 

[Baron]

Plonk !

Josepi Inscribed thus:
Wincrap snipped.
--
Best Regards:
Baron.

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 21:33:50 -0500, "Josepi" <JRM@invaliid.con> wrote:

Unbelievable. I didn't have to mouse scroll down and then back up again to
see if I missed anything...

and look! You header, and JF's is with your text and the one before it are
all in order.

I have seen many articles on top posting and it seems it will be the way of
the future once people get more modern Usenet browsers that can actually not
mix up the posting. Funny how these obstinates can use top posting everyday
for business email and then totally switch when posting in a forum like
Usenet.

I have used a few different newsgroup browsers and they all position the
curser at the top.

---
That's done as a courtesy to those who are reading the thread for the
first time as it allows them to read the thread using what most of us
accept as conventional chronology.

I suppose you regard it as an unfair intelligence test since you seem to
have so much trouble navigating the thread by moving the "curser" to the
salient part of the thread or to the most recent article.

There are always special keystrokes to get to the bottom
but then you have to backtrack to find the top of the entry. Even the
signatures lines are handled by deleting them. So many groups use this
method now with the exception of a few old farts from the outdated IRC...LOL

---
"Even the signatures lines are handled by deleting them."???

Poor baby, you really _don't_ know how to use a proper newsreader, do
you?
---

This should have them cringing in their boots.

---

I used the words "browser",
"forum" and a few others that the "everbody has to be like me" trolls like
to cling onto...LOL

---
Sounds like that puts you squarely in the camp you so loudly denounce,
since you and the rest of your little junta want to saddle everyone with
top posting just to satisfy your bloated egos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_euKhE7rw0&feature=related
---

Have a good one.

---
I already do.

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 00:02:25 -0500, "Josepi" <JRM@invaliid.con> wrote:

nospam@nevis.com> wrote in message news:4b46a039@news.x-privat.org...

Usenet reads like a book, top posters are a pain in the ass. Doesn't
matter anyway, usenet is dead

Exactly, so why would you start at the bottom with your post?

---
He didn't, he _finished_ at the bottom of the thread.

Moreover, if your "Exactly" indicates agreement, then posting your
reply at the beginning of the book instead of at the end indicates that
you're as ignorant about chronolgy as you are about usenetiquette.

Little surprise from someone who reads USENET with a "browser"
---

Bottom posting arguments and other general stupidity is killing it.

---
Bottom-posting isn't, since it's the norm for USENET posting, but
general stupidity might be, viewed in the light of your recent posts and
Google's access policies.

However, Michael B, who at:

76754153-f710-4fd0-8a3c-e30d5bca5dc8@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com

stated:

"Hmm, now that I think of it, there is an
enormous number of specific-interest
groups, more being formed all the time.",

indicating that _he_ thinks USENET is growing.

Do you disagree?

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 01:07:41 -0800, Fred Abse
<excretatauris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 18:06:58 -0500, Josepi wrote:

Dimentia becoming aproblem?

I don' have two minds, only one.

I think you meant "dementia"

---


JF

 

John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 00:02:25 -0500, "Josepi" <JRM@invaliid.con> wrote:

nospam@nevis.com> wrote in message news:4b46a039@news.x-privat.org...


Usenet reads like a book, top posters are a pain in the ass. Doesn't
matter anyway, usenet is dead

Exactly, so why would you start at the bottom with your post?

---
He didn't, he _finished_ at the bottom of the thread.

Moreover, if your "Exactly" indicates agreement, then posting your
reply at the beginning of the book instead of at the end indicates that
you're as ignorant about chronolgy as you are about usenetiquette.

Little surprise from someone who reads USENET with a "browser"
---

Bottom posting arguments and other general stupidity is killing it.

---
Bottom-posting isn't, since it's the norm for USENET posting, but
general stupidity might be, viewed in the light of your recent posts and
Google's access policies.

However, Michael B, who at:

76754153-f710-4fd0-8a3c-e30d5bca5dc8@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com

stated:

"Hmm, now that I think of it, there is an
enormous number of specific-interest
groups, more being formed all the time.",

indicating that _he_ thinks USENET is growing.

Do you disagree?

JF

All of the groups I have used since 1996 have shrunk to a few members
who seem to post out of habit or are " just checking in". Some now such
as alt.culture.luddites, are so vacant they don't even have spam posts.
My ISP , as well as a number of others stopped free access to newsgroups
three years ago, which seemed to be about the time new membership in any
of the groups I used began to decline.

 

[keithw86@gmail.com]

On Jan 8, 9:20 am, nos...@nevis.com wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 00:02:25 -0500, "Josepi" <J...@invaliid.con> wrote:

nos...@nevis.com> wrote in messagenews:4b46a039@news.x-privat.org...

Usenet reads like a book, top posters are a pain in the ass. Doesn't
matter anyway, usenet is dead

Exactly, so why would you start at the bottom with your post?

---
He didn't, he _finished_ at the bottom of the thread.

Moreover, if your "Exactly" indicates agreement, then posting  your
reply at the beginning of the book instead of at the end indicates that
you're as ignorant about chronolgy as you are about usenetiquette.

Little surprise from someone who reads USENET with a "browser"
---

Bottom posting arguments and other general stupidity is killing it.

---
Bottom-posting isn't, since it's the norm for USENET posting, but
general stupidity might be, viewed in the light of your recent posts and
Google's access policies.

However, Michael B, who at:

76754153-f710-4fd0-8a3c-e30d5bca5...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com

stated:

"Hmm, now that I think of it, there is an
enormous number of specific-interest
groups, more being formed all the time.",

indicating that _he_ thinks USENET is growing.

Do you disagree?

JF

All of the groups I have used since 1996 have shrunk to a few members
who seem to post out of habit or are " just checking in". Some now such
as alt.culture.luddites, are so vacant they don't even have spam posts.
My ISP , as well as a number of others stopped free access to newsgroups
three years ago, which seemed to be about the time new membership in any
of the groups I used began to decline.

I still follow several quite active NGs. Some continue to pay for
Usenet access. I've been paying for at least five years, well before
my ISPs dropped free access. It's not expensive.

 

keithw86@gmail.com wrote:

On Jan 8, 9:20 am, nos...@nevis.com wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 00:02:25 -0500, "Josepi" <J...@invaliid.con> wrote:
nos...@nevis.com> wrote in messagenews:4b46a039@news.x-privat.org...
Usenet reads like a book, top posters are a pain in the ass. Doesn't
matter anyway, usenet is dead
Exactly, so why would you start at the bottom with your post?
---
He didn't, he _finished_ at the bottom of the thread.
Moreover, if your "Exactly" indicates agreement, then posting your
reply at the beginning of the book instead of at the end indicates that
you're as ignorant about chronolgy as you are about usenetiquette.
Little surprise from someone who reads USENET with a "browser"
---
Bottom posting arguments and other general stupidity is killing it.
---
Bottom-posting isn't, since it's the norm for USENET posting, but
general stupidity might be, viewed in the light of your recent posts and
Google's access policies.
However, Michael B, who at:
76754153-f710-4fd0-8a3c-e30d5bca5...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
stated:
"Hmm, now that I think of it, there is an
enormous number of specific-interest
groups, more being formed all the time.",
indicating that _he_ thinks USENET is growing.
Do you disagree?
JF
All of the groups I have used since 1996 have shrunk to a few members
who seem to post out of habit or are " just checking in". Some now such
as alt.culture.luddites, are so vacant they don't even have spam posts.
My ISP , as well as a number of others stopped free access to newsgroups
three years ago, which seemed to be about the time new membership in any
of the groups I used began to decline.

I still follow several quite active NGs. Some continue to pay for
Usenet access. I've been paying for at least five years, well before
my ISPs dropped free access. It's not expensive.

Most of my groups have gone from well over 100 posts a day to less than
five a week. One group I follow, Rec.antiques, had over 23,000
subscribers in 1997- 2000, now it has 605, but it goes for weeks without
anything but spam posts. It seems that no new members are coming on
board, the last one out please turn off the lights :~(((((

 

[Baron]

nospam@nevis.com Inscribed thus:

John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 00:02:25 -0500, "Josepi" <JRM@invaliid.con> wrote:

nospam@nevis.com> wrote in message
news:4b46a039@news.x-privat.org...


Usenet reads like a book, top posters are a pain in the ass. Doesn't
matter anyway, usenet is dead

Exactly, so why would you start at the bottom with your post?

---
He didn't, he _finished_ at the bottom of the thread.

Moreover, if your "Exactly" indicates agreement, then posting your
reply at the beginning of the book instead of at the end indicates
that you're as ignorant about chronolgy as you are about
usenetiquette.

Little surprise from someone who reads USENET with a "browser"
---

Bottom posting arguments and other general stupidity is killing it.

---
Bottom-posting isn't, since it's the norm for USENET posting, but
general stupidity might be, viewed in the light of your recent posts
and Google's access policies.

However, Michael B, who at:

76754153-f710-4fd0-8a3c-e30d5bca5dc8@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com

stated:

"Hmm, now that I think of it, there is an
enormous number of specific-interest
groups, more being formed all the time.",

indicating that _he_ thinks USENET is growing.

Do you disagree?

JF


All of the groups I have used since 1996 have shrunk to a few members
who seem to post out of habit or are " just checking in". Some now
such as alt.culture.luddites, are so vacant they don't even have spam
posts. My ISP , as well as a number of others stopped free access to
newsgroups three years ago, which seemed to be about the time new
membership in any of the groups I used began to decline.

I concur. ISP's have allowed Google to effectively pass off Usenet as
their own by killing access via them. The net result is fewer people
being exposed to News Servers and knowing that HTML is not the norm.

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

 

[daestrom]

Josepi wrote:

Was that when you were a ship's captain in the Navy, a nuclear Physicist or
a Hydro Operator?

"daestrom" <daestrom@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hi5ko60u7r@news1.newsguy.com...

the usual snipped

daestrom


Just because you are stuck in a dead end job and haven't finished

anything you started, doesn't mean everyone else is the same.

I was a chief petty officer serving on submarines, not a captain. You
obviously don't even know military protocol to make such a stupid gaff.

When I got out I put my nuclear power experience to work as a senior
reactor operator of a commercial power plant. But I have no idea where
you got the idea of hydro operator. Although I have been involved with
system operators that work with all types of power plants.

And yes, along the way I did a lot of work with computers from UNIX and
CPM/86 to Sun SPARC and Windows. My first personal computer was in
1979, long before the IBM PC (and no, it wasn't a trash-80, that was my
shipmate's). Bought it to teach myself something new. Learned to
program pretty well in FORTRAN, C, JAVA and assembler to name a few (I
can recognize LISP, CLIPS or PROLOG when I see them).

I'm sorry you have such a sheltered life, but you can only blame
yourself. Quite drinking beer in front of the TV with your hand down
your pants and make something of yourself.

daestrom