A question about coil winding

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

daestrom

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

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

daestrom

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 th> My position and that of probably >>99% of USENET is that bottom and

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 So many groups use this method now with the exception of a few old farts from the outdated IRC...LOL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.

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 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.

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

--- 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, 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.

---

--- 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

--- "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

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.

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

Bottom posting arguments and other general stupidity is killing it.

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.

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)

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

no, they aren't visible at all.

there is no requirement to top post in email.

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: snipped-for-privacy@netfront.net ---

--- 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:

"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.

---

--- 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".

---

--- 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

Plonk !

Josepi Inscribed thus: Wincrap snipped.

--- 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.

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

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

---

---

--- 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.

---

--- I already do.

JF

--- 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 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:

snipped-for-privacy@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 :~(((((