WinsorFox spouts, I answer...

I gave him a list of personality problems to work on. I'm just waiting for
the progress reports.

MHB


"Richard Ness" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm not arguing that posting on the bottom of a Usenet post is what
> is considered normal. People whining about it and being a PITA
> know it all f*&# is my problem.
>
> And, the fact that you argue that this is also the way e-mail is done,
> is completely asinine.
>
> All Internet professionals are wrong and I guess YOU are right, huh??"
>
> You single out Real, hurl a couple of insults and ignore the rest. Most
> all of the
> people I do business with are in many cases C level individuals or high up
> in their
> respective companies. These are the "lazy idiots" you refer to? These ARE
> people
> that know what the right way is, set the standard and in ALL cases, the
> way they
> correspond internally, with each other and with their vendors. It's the
> way it's done.
> Internal communications within companies I have worked for.... Bell
> Canada, U S
> West, GTE, WorldCom/MCI, Comcast, are all done with newest on top,
> period!!
> But we ALL are "lazy and idiots??
>
> What I find sad and/or laughable is that you insist that the VAST majority
> is wrong.
> You insist that IT professionals, VP and C level people are all doing it
> wrong.
>
> And, that piddly little old insignificant piss ant you is.... right??
>
> Please pull out your anally inserted cranium.
>
>
> "WindsorFox[SS]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:7IrTc.28315$Jo1.22502@lakeread01...
>> Richard Ness wrote:
>>
>> > Seriously, huh? (you actually bottom reply to E-MAILS???)
>> > Note the "E-MAIL" above, NOT Usenet. I don't know anyone
>> > that replies to the bottom of an E-MAIL. EVERYONE replies at
>> > the top and the messages go from newer (TOP) to older at
>> > the bottom. Funny that daily messages from very knowledgeable,
>> > VERY net savvy tech/network folks from real.com, microsoft.com,
>> > amazon.com, L3, Wcom/MCI, GX, etc, etc, etc... are ALWAYS in
>> > this top down format. We (all Internet professionals) are all wrong
>> > and I guess YOU are right, huh??
>>
>> ROFL!! Tech savvy people at Real.com. Every one of those wipes
>> should be put in jail for producing commputer choking, consealed
>> spayware. Email is rarely as long as Usenet and I say yes, everyone
>> you email with who top posts is either lazy or an idiot, OR they
>> shake their head in discust and do it because you did it first and
>> top posting is the only way to keep some congruency.
>>
>> It does not MATTER what someone does as a job, top posting in
>> Usenet is WRONG. It's confusing and unnatural to read. I tell you
>> what sparky, you goto a few professional Usenet groups like network
>> admin groups, computer or scientific groups or the groups on
>> professional private servers like at Gibson Reaserch, Spamcop or
>> Microsoft and see howmany top posters are there. Then goto a
>> moderated group and make a top post. You will get a warning once or
>> twice and after that your posts will not even show up.
>>
>
>

---

› See More: WinsorFox spouts, I answer...

Richard Ness wrote:

> I'm not arguing that posting on the bottom of a Usenet post is what
> is considered normal. People whining about it and being a PITA
> know it all f*&# is my problem.

If you have an interpretation problem, it's just that; your
problem. Telling you what is written in numerous places on the
Internet is not acting like a know it all, even though lots of people
other than you know it.

>
> And, the fact that you argue that this is also the way e-mail is done,
> is completely asinine.

I stated, that is the way I do it.

>
> All Internet professionals are wrong and I guess YOU are right, huh??"

All of the professionals that I email with post on the bottom. The
ones that do not are generally new and casual users. I conveyed my
experiences, the fact that you disagree and turn highly defensive to
defend your position is not my fault. No, *I* am not right. I do
things as they are prescribed in the FAQs and Postings of acceptable
nettiquet for Usenet. They are not my rules, suggestions or desires,
they existed long before I joined the Internet in 89 I just informed
you of what they say and even gave you a link to see for yourself.


>
> You single out Real, hurl a couple of insults and ignore the rest.

That is because it struck me as funny. Real.com is regarded as
only borderline legal. Take a good look at the bloatware they peddle,
it's the ultimate in spyware.

> Most all of the
> people I do business with are in many cases C level individuals or high up in their
> respective companies. These are the "lazy idiots" you refer to?

Yes. How do I put it. Lazy may not be how to explain it, tunnel
vision perhaps. CEOs and such are incessantly known for knowing or
caring little about the systems they use. I see it all the time, like
turning off the virus software because the nags to update the
definitions was annoying them. Things like that.

> These ARE people
> that know what the right way is, set the standard and in ALL cases, the way they
> correspond internally, with each other and with their vendors.

They know the way they want to do it. They will do it that way not
because it's correct but because they like it and "I'm the CEO and
who's going to dare tell me otherwise". Just because someone works
for Microsoft and are high up in the company you assume they know all
of these things. That's a bad assumption. Just read the links I posted.

> It's the way it's done.
> Internal communications within companies I have worked for.... Bell Canada, U S
> West, GTE, WorldCom/MCI, Comcast, are all done with newest on top, period!!
> But we ALL are "lazy and idiots??

If you are looking for confirmation of highly knowledgeable
technical people, dropping names like Worldcom and Comcast to
computer and net admins definitely will not get you there. This is
enlightening, I see now how there is such a difference in who are
considered to be highly technical people to different people. I am
saying that the people who have been using these systems for a very
long time or were instrumental in developing them do not participate
the way you are defending.

>
> What I find sad and/or laughable is that you insist that the VAST majority is wrong.
> You insist that IT professionals, VP and C level people are all doing it wrong.

What I find sad is that you can't seem to participate without
becoming infuriated. Again, look at the links I posted. If more
people top post it is because that now there is no repercussion
unless you are in a moderated Usenet group. Years ago if you did
something that the mod or admin didn't like, you found yourself
without access and groveling for your connection back. In some ways I
think that was better, but in others it's not; that thing about
absolute power. Most people you are referring to who are a CEO or VP
of some huge company do things the quickest and easiest way for them
and are too busy to bother with or care about whatever else. Many
techs especially the BOFH refer to it as laziness, I'd say it is
probably more due to priorities and protocol of how you follow up a
post or email is not high on the list. Again this refers mostly to
Usenet not email because as pointed out, email rarely has the length
and live time that Usenet posts do also Usenet servers have to be
purged at some point extremely long posts didn't last long when hard
drives were smaller

>
> And, that piddly little old insignificant piss ant you is.... right??

Yes I am. But then as I pointed out they aint my rules, I just
mentioned them.

>
> Please pull out your anally inserted cranium.

Please do the same, just skim the 2 links I posted.
See, If you posted where you were supposed to everyone could see
exactly what you were replying to and if you trimmed it your post
wouldn't be three feet long. I'll give you some Usenet groups to look
at and confirm the point if you like. Some people still do it, that
doesn't make it right. I rarely wear a seat belt, but it's still
against the law. Of course it's only me that's hurt, I'm not
confusing a buttload of people which you aren't in this group either,
but in some groups you could.

MichiganHotBear thaid:

> I gave him a list of personality problems to work on. I'm just waiting for
> the progress reports.
>



I gotchur problems right here gayboy....

This is going to be a tough case. As you all can see, the progress reports
don't look good.

And then there is the issue of him claiming that my name is "homoerotic".
Obviously it must have aroused him greatly for him to make that remark.
After all, he did claim earlier that he was above insults and name calling.
It would appear that that claim was a ruse meant to deflect his other
dysfunctions and shortcomings.

At any rate, I shall sleep well tonight knowing that in his time of need, I
was able to provide some sort of vicarious sexual thrill to him. I look
forward to the next progress report showing positive signs.

MHB

"WindsorFox[SS]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:gXUTc.29822$Jo1.8272@lakeread01...
> MichiganHotBear thaid:
>
>> I gave him a list of personality problems to work on. I'm just waiting
>> for the progress reports.
>>
>
>
>
> I gotchur problems right here gayboy....
>

MichiganHotBear wrote:

> At any rate, I shall sleep well tonight knowing that in his time of need, I
> was able to provide some sort of vicarious sexual thrill to him. I look
> forward to the next progress report showing positive signs.
>
> MHB
>


You are dissmissed as a wanna be. Use that phone at the gaybars?