OT:WARNING: CItibank Scam

In article <[email protected]>,
Gymmy Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
> Usenet does NOT specify formats or netiquette. It is all just opinion on
> preferences.

You don't half talk bollocks. If there were no standards on formats, then
MS would long ago have produced newsreaders that made it impossible for
other makers to read/write to newsgroups. Instead of just making one which
makes things look crap.

As regards netiquette - have you ever done a search and read the results?

--
*There are two sides to every divorce: Yours and **** head's*

Dave Plowman [email protected] London SW 12
RIP Acorn

---

› See More: OT:WARNING: CItibank Scam

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 10:04:31 +0100, Dave Plowman
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Gymmy Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Usenet does NOT specify formats or netiquette. It is all just opinion on
>> preferences.
>

>
>As regards netiquette - have you ever done a search and read the results?

try RFC1855

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:51:08 -0400, Gymmy Bob used
<[email protected]> to say...

[silly top posting corrected]


>"Kurt Hamster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 18:35:08 -0400, Gymmy Bob used
>> <[email protected]> to say...
>>
>> >People that put the attachments of others posts at the top of an email
>are
>> >complete idiots and should think about their netiquette.
>>
>> What a tonka toy you be.
>>
>> >How many times are we supposed to read the crap over and over before we
>get
>> >to the reply? On a long post it better be good or most will just
>killfilter
>> >you to avoid further repeat reading. The Europeans on cells modems will
>> >certainly love you for running up their online bills...NOT!
>>
>> That's why snipping unnecessary text is the way to go, then replying
>> directly under the text you are referring to.
>>
>> Unfortunately muppets like you who top-post are invariably the worst
>> offenders for not snipping the text you quote.
>>
>> I appreciate it's a double whammy you being Canadian and an OE user, but
>> I'm sure you can put a little effort into moving the cursor from where
>> Bill suggests you start typing.
>>
>> Then I suggest you actually read up on some of the Usenet 'manuals' aka
>> RFCs
>>
>There are no USENET MANUALS and if anybody tries to tell you that they are
>sillier than you.

You did spot the quotes didn't you?

You are obviously a newbie at this, given away by your propensity for
top posting, your use of OE and your ignorance of what an RFC is.

>Usenet does NOT specify formats or netiquette. It is all just opinion on
>preferences. Practicality is the only way.

They are opinions based on knowledge and experience, then agreed on by
other people who know better than you or I.

Try RFC1855 for a start, you never know, you may even klearn something
(though I won't hold my breath.)

>Please post your attachments at the bottom if you want people to read your
>posts. If you don't then what are you trying to accomplish?

And yet another example of your newbie status, i.e. not knowing the
difference between an attachment and a reply.

Kurt Hamster <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>>Please post your attachments at the bottom if you want people to read
>>your posts. If you don't then what are you trying to accomplish?
>
> And yet another example of your newbie status, i.e. not knowing the
> difference between an attachment and a reply.

I was trying to figure out what the hell he was on about over that ;-)

--
*..· ´¨¨)) -:¦:-
¸.·´ .·´¨¨))
((¸¸.·´ .·´ -:¦:- *POD {Ò¿Ó}* -:¦:-
-:¦:- ((¸¸.·´*

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:36:40 +0100, mave <[email protected]> found these unused words
floating about:

>In article <[email protected]>, dave
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Received this today
>> Dear Citibank Member,
>
>bah... I fire up my newsreader, see 16 new messages and I think there's
>some juicy scrap I've missed out on... that'll teach me to hang out in
>groups where 16 messages is a big deal...
>
>BTW, anyone who actually falls for scams like this without checking
>with their bank first *deserves* to have the contents of their account
>scooped up by some dumb-ass script kiddie and spent on crack, porn and
>doughnuts...
>
Then obviously you want rec.photo.digital ... usually hundreds of useless OT
drivel like this. Should make your entertainment (between silly soaps and
lame sitcoms, that is).

I did. The opinion of that self designated group says **NOT** to include the
entire post to which you are replying to at the top of the reply.

"imbsysop" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 10:04:31 +0100, Dave Plowman
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > Gymmy Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Usenet does NOT specify formats or netiquette. It is all just opinion
on
> >> preferences.
> >
>
> >
> >As regards netiquette - have you ever done a search and read the results?
>
> try RFC1855
>

Sorry my overload/bandwidth saver newsgroup filter cut off your garbage.

"Kurt Hamster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:51:08 -0400, Gymmy Bob used
> <[email protected]> to say...
>
> [silly top posting corrected]
>
>
> >"Kurt Hamster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 18:35:08 -0400, Gymmy Bob used
> >> <[email protected]> to say...
> >>
> >> >People that put the attachments of others posts at the top of an email
> >are
> >> >complete idiots and should think about their netiquette.
> >>
> >> What a tonka toy you be.
> >>
> >> >How many times are we supposed to read the crap over and over before
we
> >get
> >> >to the reply? On a long post it better be good or most will just
> >killfilter
> >> >you to avoid further repeat reading. The Europeans on cells modems
will
> >> >certainly love you for running up their online bills...NOT!
> >>
> >> That's why snipping unnecessary text is the way to go, then replying
> >> directly under the text you are referring to.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately muppets like you who top-post are invariably the worst
> >> offenders for not snipping the text you quote.
> >>
> >> I appreciate it's a double whammy you being Canadian and an OE user,
but
> >> I'm sure you can put a little effort into moving the cursor from where
> >> Bill suggests you start typing.
> >>
> >> Then I suggest you actually read up on some of the Usenet 'manuals' aka
> >> RFCs
> >>
> >There are no USENET MANUALS and if anybody tries to tell you that they
are
> >sillier th

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 19:42:50 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" <[email protected]>
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

errr?....

>You don't have to studder if you get excited.

****************************************************
I went on a guided tour not long ago.The guide got
us lost. He was a non-compass mentor.........sorry
.........no I'm not.

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 19:42:03 -0400, Gymmy Bob used
<[email protected]> to say...

>Sorry my overload/bandwidth saver newsgroup filter cut off your garbage.

It can't work that well as it allows you to post.

You sad bastard.
I much prefer posts at the top, then you don't have to scroll down to read
it. Much easier.
So how can one person be wrong about this? It's what ever each individual
person prefers.


"POD {Ò¿Ó}" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Tony Bond" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > And bottom posting is for morons who can't remember the text of the
> > message before and have to re-read the whole thing again.
> > For your information, top/bottom posting is a matter of ettiquette,
> > something you obviously have no idea about....
>
> Ah, Meester Bond, I have been expecting you...or rather, I was
> expecting some lame-arsed comeback from some muppet, who hasn't a
> friggin' clue about Usenet.
>
> Just because you are so fecklessly stupid to be using Outlook Express,
> and it's ignorant way of prompting you to top-post, does not make it
> acceptable. So it's twice as laughable that you make a further baboon's
> arse out of yourself by spouting that *I* have no idea!!! This from a
> spanner using OE on Blueyonder....BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Jeez, what a
> clown!
>
> Go on, entertain me further, come back again and spout more rubbish, I
> need the laugh, you feckless wonder!
>
> --
> *..· ´¨¨)) -:¦:-
> ¸.·´ .·´¨¨))
> ((¸¸.·´ .·´ -:¦:- *POD {Ò¿Ó}* -:¦:-
> -:¦:- ((¸¸.·´*

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 19:42:50 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" <[email protected]> found
these unused words floating about:

>You don't have to studder if you get excited.
>
I've heard of shudder and stutter ... is 'studder' something studdents do?

In article <[email protected]>,
Peter Hewitt-Dutton <[email protected]> wrote:
> You sad bastard. I much prefer posts at the top, then you don't have to
> scroll down to read it. Much easier. So how can one person be wrong
> about this? It's what ever each individual person prefers.

So you only post to a group to read your own posts?

Try counting the numbers of top against bottom posts on this or any other
UK group. Bottom posting is the norm - and by a factor of several.

--
*Born free...Taxed to death.

Dave Plowman [email protected] London SW 12
RIP Acorn

> Try counting the numbers of top against bottom posts on this or any other
> UK group. Bottom posting is the norm - and by a factor of several.
>

Don't say that, they'll go on a crazy top posting rampage just to out number
the bottom (proper) posts just to prove you wrong.

A. Because it messes up the reading order
Q. Why shouldn't people top post?

A. Top Posting
Q. Whats the most annoying thing on usenet?

"Dave Plowman" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> Try counting the numbers of top against bottom posts on this or any
other
> UK group. Bottom posting is the norm - and by a factor of several.

The implication here is that 'you' have counted them ............You
must be a pretty sad guy.

Know what I mean? ........;-)))

Bill Newton

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:56:29 +0000 (UTC), Bill Newton used
<[email protected]> to say...

>
>"Dave Plowman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> Try counting the numbers of top against bottom posts on this or any
>other
>> UK group. Bottom posting is the norm - and by a factor of several.
>
>The implication here is that 'you' have counted them ............You
>must be a pretty sad guy.
>
>Know what I mean? ........;-)))

One doesn't need to count when the overwhelming majority correctly
bottom post.