Results 61 to 75 of 76
- 08-30-2007, 05:27 PM #61Rod SpeedGuest
Re: Top Posting
Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> John Weiss <jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> And the other fundamental point is why bother to waste your time trimming anyway ?
>>> Good point. Why waste time on courtesy
>> It aint courtesy to molest someone else's post and risk slanting what remains by dropping what the OP considers to be
>> an important point or qualification.
>>> and efficiency?
>> Its more efficient to not trim and the days when the
>> size of the post mattered a damn are long gone.
>> Sure, a few are silly enough to use low bandwidth systems for usenet.
>> No reason why everyone should bother to format posts to suit that microscopic minority now.
> "Trimming" doesn't mean "cutting."
Yes it does.
> You leave in what's pertinent to the response and get rid of the rest.
And that involves cutting 'the rest'.
And you're making a judgement about what is 'pertinent' that the OP may not agree with.
> Most people, when seeing hundreds (sometimes thousands!) of lines of old drivel, probably just skip the entire post.
You have absolutely no idea what 'most people' do.
Most just read the new material and the quoted material is there for those who
prefer to be able to see that when they have forgotten the context or never did
see the original and prefer not to have to hunt up the original if they did see it.
Everyone has seen plenty of examples where a particular post makes no sense,
because what has been left after the trimming now makes no sense in isolation.
› See More: Going to small claims court tomorrow against Sprint;any suggestions?
- 08-30-2007, 08:39 PM #62Russell PattersonGuest
Re: Top Posting
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:39:13 -0600, Notan
<notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:
>Rod Speed wrote:
>> John Weiss <jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>>>> And the other fundamental point is why bother to waste your time trimming anyway ?
>>
>>> Good point. Why waste time on courtesy
>>
>> It aint courtesy to molest someone else's post and risk slanting what remains
>> by dropping what the OP considers to be an important point or qualification.
>>
>>> and efficiency?
>>
>> Its more efficient to not trim and the days when the
>> size of the post mattered a damn are long gone.
>>
>> Sure, a few are silly enough to use low bandwidth systems for usenet.
>>
>> No reason why everyone should bother to format posts to suit that microscopic minority now.
>>
>> <reams of your juvenile **** any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
>
>"Trimming" doesn't mean "cutting."
>
>You leave in what's pertinent to the response and get rid of the rest.
>
>Most people, when seeing hundreds (sometimes thousands!) of lines of old drivel,
>probably just skip the entire post.
Especially when they would have to scroll to the bottom to read it!
Thanks for helping me make my point about the advantages of top
posting. Don't bother responding. I am welcome!
- 08-30-2007, 09:11 PM #63NotanGuest
Re: Top Posting
Russell Patterson wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:39:13 -0600, Notan
> <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:
>
>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>> John Weiss <jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>> And the other fundamental point is why bother to waste your time trimming anyway ?
>>>> Good point. Why waste time on courtesy
>>> It aint courtesy to molest someone else's post and risk slanting what remains
>>> by dropping what the OP considers to be an important point or qualification.
>>>
>>>> and efficiency?
>>> Its more efficient to not trim and the days when the
>>> size of the post mattered a damn are long gone.
>>>
>>> Sure, a few are silly enough to use low bandwidth systems for usenet.
>>>
>>> No reason why everyone should bother to format posts to suit that microscopic minority now.
>>>
>>> <reams of your juvenile **** any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
>> "Trimming" doesn't mean "cutting."
>>
>> You leave in what's pertinent to the response and get rid of the rest.
>>
>> Most people, when seeing hundreds (sometimes thousands!) of lines of old drivel,
>> probably just skip the entire post.
>
> Especially when they would have to scroll to the bottom to read it!
> Thanks for helping me make my point about the advantages of top
> posting. Don't bother responding. I am welcome!
So how come you didn't top post?
--
Notan
- 08-30-2007, 09:16 PM #64Russell PattersonGuest
Re: Top Posting
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:11:47 -0600, Notan
<notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:
>Russell Patterson wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:39:13 -0600, Notan
>> <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:
>>
>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> John Weiss <jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>> And the other fundamental point is why bother to waste your time trimming anyway ?
>>>>> Good point. Why waste time on courtesy
>>>> It aint courtesy to molest someone else's post and risk slanting what remains
>>>> by dropping what the OP considers to be an important point or qualification.
>>>>
>>>>> and efficiency?
>>>> Its more efficient to not trim and the days when the
>>>> size of the post mattered a damn are long gone.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, a few are silly enough to use low bandwidth systems for usenet.
>>>>
>>>> No reason why everyone should bother to format posts to suit that microscopic minority now.
>>>>
>>>> <reams of your juvenile **** any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
>>> "Trimming" doesn't mean "cutting."
>>>
>>> You leave in what's pertinent to the response and get rid of the rest.
>>>
>>> Most people, when seeing hundreds (sometimes thousands!) of lines of old drivel,
>>> probably just skip the entire post.
>>
>> Especially when they would have to scroll to the bottom to read it!
>> Thanks for helping me make my point about the advantages of top
>> posting. Don't bother responding. I am welcome!
>
>So how come you didn't top post?
I wanted to make you scroll down to read it!
- 08-30-2007, 09:33 PM #65Guest
Re: Top Posting, was Re: Going to small claims court tomorrow against Sprint; any suggestions?
In article <[email protected]>, waile2155
@mypacks.net says...
> It is truly hilarious that these control freaks are still trying to
> stop people from top-posting. This futile effort has been going on for
> decades and has not worked. In fact, many people don't bother to
> top-post unless some nut tries to tell them not to.
Strange, have there been knocks on your door or something? I haven't
seen *anyone* trying to force people to post intelligently....
--
[email protected] is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html>
- 08-31-2007, 12:23 AM #66Rod SpeedGuest
Re: Top Posting, was Re: Going to small claims court tomorrow against Sprint; any suggestions?
[email protected] wrote
> [email protected] wrote
>> It is truly hilarious that these control freaks are still trying to
>> stop people from top-posting. This futile effort has been going
>> on for decades and has not worked. In fact, many people don't
>> bother to top-post unless some nut tries to tell them not to.
> Strange, have there been knocks on your door or something?
Or something, usually snide remarks about top posting.
> I haven't seen *anyone* trying to force people to post intelligently....
He didnt say anything about force.
- 08-31-2007, 06:52 PM #67NotanGuest
Re: Top Posting, was Re: Going to small claims court tomorrow againstSprint; any suggestions?
Rod Speed wrote:
> [email protected] wrote
>> [email protected] wrote
>
>>> It is truly hilarious that these control freaks are still trying to
>>> stop people from top-posting. This futile effort has been going
>>> on for decades and has not worked. In fact, many people don't
>>> bother to top-post unless some nut tries to tell them not to.
>
>> Strange, have there been knocks on your door or something?
>
> Or something, usually snide remarks about top posting.
>
>> I haven't seen *anyone* trying to force people to post intelligently....
>
> He didnt say anything about force.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/imply
or
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infer
--
Notan
- 08-31-2007, 08:13 PM #68Rod SpeedGuest
Re: Top Posting, was Re: Going to small claims court tomorrow against Sprint; any suggestions?
Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> [email protected] wrote
>>> [email protected] wrote
>>>> It is truly hilarious that these control freaks are still trying to
>>>> stop people from top-posting. This futile effort has been going
>>>> on for decades and has not worked. In fact, many people don't
>>>> bother to top-post unless some nut tries to tell them not to.
>>> Strange, have there been knocks on your door or something?
>> Or something, usually snide remarks about top posting.
>>> I haven't seen *anyone* trying to force people to post intelligently....
>> He didnt say anything about force.
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/imply
> or
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infer
force was never implied or inferred.
Anyone with a clue, which obviously counts fools like you out,
realises that the most any newsgroup post can ever do is
request or demand and can be ignored with complete impunity.
- 08-31-2007, 09:50 PM #69Bernardo GuiGuest
Re: Top Posting and Other Inanities
It's disturbing that a grown man wouldn't be embarrassed to talk about
"plonking" somebody, as if it was some kind of effective punishment.
The only one it hurts is you. Nobody cares who you plonk. Announcing
it just emphasizes your feeble powerlessness.
Bernardo
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 20:24:25 -0700, Scott in SoCal
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I've also found it a good rule of thumb to PLONK top-posters on sight.
>I figure if someone can't be bothered to post correctly, and/or can't
>be bothered to edit their response, they probably don't have anything
>worthwhile to say.
- 09-21-2007, 01:13 PM #70LarryGuest
Re: Going to small claims court tomorrow against Sprint; any suggestions?
[email protected] (Jonathan Kamens) wrote in news:fd0q95$i2f$1
@jik2.kamens.brookline.ma.us:
> Needless to say, I have no intention of letting them get away
> with not paying the other ~$600 I've been awarded by the court.
>
>
Congratulations on your "win"! I'd say you're due another fat check but
they may have 30-90 days to pay up....(c;
Mark one for the little guy....even though your $600 wouldn't have covered
the lawyer's first 10 minutes he'd bill them, probably why they didn't show
up.
Larry
--
Search youtube for "Depleted Uranium"
The ultimate dirty bomb......
- 09-21-2007, 03:30 PM #71GiniGuest
Re: Going to small claims court tomorrow against Sprint; any suggestions?
"Jonathan Kamens" wrote
> About a month ago, I wrote:
>
>>Sprint didn't show up. The clerk magistrate entered a default judgment
>>in my favor. She said she would take the evidence and case summary I
>>gave her under advisement to arrive at the final settlement amount.
>>She seemed pretty convinced about the triple damages, but of course I
>>won't know for certain until I get the settlement notice from the court.
>
> I just found out that she has awarded me the triple damages.
> The paperwork was mailed to Sprint and me yesterday.
==
Congratulations!
- 09-21-2007, 03:31 PM #72Steve SobolGuest
Re: Going to small claims court tomorrow against Sprint; any suggestions?
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.]
On 2007-09-21, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
> Congratulations on your "win"! I'd say you're due another fat check but
> they may have 30-90 days to pay up....(c;
ahhh, BUT.
That could work out in his favor.
A lady (actually I'm being polite; she was no lady, she was a
slimebag) stiffed me on a $3500 invoice for some contract programming
work I did for her. She ignored the invoice for two years after I sued her...
Well, I sued in Cleveland, Ohio Municipal Court and got a default
judgement, because she didn't show up. She finally showed up, or her
lawyer did, got a motion to vacate the default, and then got a new
trial and failed to show up AGAIN. Did I mention she's also stupid?
She played games for two years, but Cleveland Muni Court forces you to pay
10% interest on judgements, and she accrued $1300 in interest over those two
years. Not smart. I was lucky, though; I managed to get my money JUST before
she sold the company. But I got every penny, including my interest!
And yes, I agree, Sprint probably didn't show up because losing would cost
them less money than defending the suit.
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
"Drench yourself in words unspoken / Live your life with arms wide open
Today is where your book begins / The rest is still unwritten"
- Natasha Beddingfield
- 09-21-2007, 04:10 PM #73SpeedwellGuest
Re: Going to small claims court tomorrow against Sprint; any suggestions?
"Jonathan Kamens" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> About a month ago, I wrote:
>
>>Sprint didn't show up. The clerk magistrate entered a default judgment
>>in my favor. She said she would take the evidence and case summary I
>>gave her under advisement to arrive at the final settlement amount.
>>She seemed pretty convinced about the triple damages, but of course I
>>won't know for certain until I get the settlement notice from the court.
>
> I just found out that she has awarded me the triple damages.
> The paperwork was mailed to Sprint and me yesterday.
>
> Coincidentally, I received in yesterday's mail, totally out of
> the blue, a check from Sprint for $262.49, the amount which I
> tried to get them to refund for six months and which sparked
> the suit I just won.
>
> Needless to say, I have no intention of letting them get away
> with not paying the other ~$600 I've been awarded by the court.
>
> I'll post again when I know more.
Congratulations!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Good on you, mate! And yes, let's stop
genocide everywhere!
>
> --
> Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
> http://www.genocideintervention.net/
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
- 09-21-2007, 07:58 PM #74LarryGuest
Re: Going to small claims court tomorrow against Sprint; any suggestions?
Steve Sobol <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> A lady (actually I'm being polite; she was no lady, she was a
> slimebag) stiffed me on a $3500 invoice for some contract programming
> work I did for her.
When I started my church organ service business, I'd go to a church that
had been left unlocked for me, fix the organ, leave my bill on the music
rack and a check would come in a few days...my never having seen a soul
in person.
That has all changed, now. It got so bad just trying to get ANY payment,
I stopped entering any church that didn't have a representative opening
the door for me who could sign the statement agreeing that the organ was
fixed to their satisfaction and they agreed to pay me. Checks came
again.
The checks got later and later. After 14 days, I'd start calling. AFter
30 days, I'd show up at the main church service in my big van with all
the signs to confront them about my payment. I had to confiscate 2
organs for non-payment, a real pain-in-the-ass to resell to get any
money.
Organ service is now all COD. Portable keyboard service requires up-
front money, $100 in cash, before I'll open the case. I had 18 fine-
working keyboards, some worth some real money, noone ever came back to
retrieve.
Just like the plumbers, carpenters and electricians at home, I don't
leave the church unless I have a signed, valid check for services
rendered....DAILY. There are two tricks...forgetting a signature on a
multiple signature check is number one. I can't cash it without ALL the
signature blanks filled in. The other one was to have me get it
partially working while parts were on order to complete the job, then
refuse to let me return to complete the job because I'd want payment if
that happened. So, to thwart that, DAILY payment...for each trip.
Something bad has happened when you can't trust a CHURCH to pay its bills
in a timely manner.....It's awful. I can only imagine how less-guilt-
ridden businesses than Christians can be to get payment....(c;
Larry
--
"Yes, ma'am. You must have a signed blank check to pay my daily bill at
the church before any work begins."........how sad.
- 11-15-2007, 06:58 AM #75Jonathan KamensGuest
Re: Going to small claims court tomorrow against Sprint; any suggestions?
On September 21, I wrote:
>I just found out that she has awarded me the triple damages.
>The paperwork was mailed to Sprint and me yesterday.
>
>Coincidentally, I received in yesterday's mail, totally out of
>the blue, a check from Sprint for $262.49, the amount which I
>tried to get them to refund for six months and which sparked
>the suit I just won.
>
>Needless to say, I have no intention of letting them get away
>with not paying the other ~$600 I've been awarded by the court.
>
>I'll post again when I know more.
Believe it or not, I got a check from Sprint yesterday via DHL, for
$823.62, the total amount of the judgment in my favor issued on
September 20. It took them almost two months after the judgment to
pay, but they paid. In fact, they overpaid, since as noted above they
also sent me a check for $262.49 (part of which covers the interest to
which I'm entitled because of their late payment).
If you think I'm going to waste more of my time trying to get them to
take back the extra money they sent me, you've got another think
coming. Have you ever tried to get a large corporation to take back
money they shouldn't have given you? Well, I have. It's a nightmare.
I'll be happy to give it back as soon as they ask for it. I'm not
their lawyer or their accountant.
--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/
Similar Threads
- Boost Mobile
- alt.cellular
- Sprint PCS
- alt.cellular.verizon
Recover scammed cryptocurrency
in Samsung