Please show me the way oh great one...

For a long time, Ed Dolan has told us that the good people from Google have
provided the "bible" for Usenet posting style. I don't know why it never
occurred to me to check. Well now I've checked and can't find this document
anywhere. I would be very curious to see this document which is the basis of
my being an idiot for top-posting.

Now I know that the great one is not into things such as research and facts
(they can be so disruptive to the truth can't they?), but perhaps he would
consent to post the url of this grand opus of Usenet style for all of us to
examine.

C'mon Ed, I want to see what the right way really is. While I could infer it
from your posts or learn it from you, I'd prefer to go to the source which
you say exists. Please show me this grand document so that I might be
enlightened as you have been.

Jeff

"Jeff Grippe" wrote in message
...
For a long time, Ed Dolan has told us that the good people from Google
have provided the "bible" for Usenet posting style. I don't know why it
never occurred to me to check. Well now I've checked and can't find this
document anywhere. I would be very curious to see this document which is
the basis of my being an idiot for top-posting.

Now I know that the great one is not into things such as research and
facts (they can be so disruptive to the truth can't they?), but perhaps he
would consent to post the url of this grand opus of Usenet style for all
of us to examine.

C'mon Ed, I want to see what the right way really is. While I could infer
it from your posts or learn it from you, I'd prefer to go to the source
which you say exists. Please show me this grand document so that I might
be enlightened as you have been.

Jeff

I learned from Tom Sherman the proper way to post to Usenet. He was always
correct and quite meticulous as I could see from day one and so I merely
copied him. However, subsequent posts by others and the Google web site
provided additional confirmation that there was a right way to post and a
wrong way to post. To me it is just so elementary that it hardly bears
discussion. However, I will do a bit of research when I overcome my natural
laziness and bring to you the information that you need in order for you to
finally get your head screwed on straight. I will post the information on
this thread, so stay tuned.

If Jon Meinecke were not permanently out to lunch when serious things need
to get settled he could weigh in on this matter and set us all straight. Tom
Sherman seems to have left the group after having been here for many years.
All I know for sure is that top posting is NEVER correct. It is only done by
dunces and others who for reasons of their own do not want to play fair.

Jeff Grippe is not a bad top poster as top posters go, but the method lends
itself to all kinds of falseness and unfairness as well as confusing the
reader who is not involved in the thread. I always want to be fair to my
adversaries and to make it easy for the uninvolved reader to follow what is
being said. And so I will continue to observe the proper formatting to
Usenet. After all, it is only scoundrels who do not want to play fair.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"Jeff Grippe" wrote in message
...
For a long time, Ed Dolan has told us that the good people from Google
have provided the "bible" for Usenet posting style. I don't know why it
never occurred to me to check. Well now I've checked and can't find this
document anywhere. I would be very curious to see this document which is
the basis of my being an idiot for top-posting.

Now I know that the great one is not into things such as research and
facts (they can be so disruptive to the truth can't they?), but perhaps he
would consent to post the url of this grand opus of Usenet style for all
of us to examine.

C'mon Ed, I want to see what the right way really is. While I could infer
it from your posts or learn it from you, I'd prefer to go to the source
which you say exists. Please show me this grand document so that I might
be enlightened as you have been.

Jeff

Do a search under "top posting" and you will come up with a plethora of
websites explaining why top posting is for the birds.

To get you started, go he

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...ng&btnG=Search

I used to have a lot of information on the evils of top posting saved to My
Documents, but they are long gone. It is just so elementary I never thought
I would be called upon to justify bottom posting. Trust me on this, top
posting is for idiots and scoundrels and you should not be caught dead doing
it.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
news
I learned from Tom Sherman the proper way to post to Usenet. He was always
correct and quite meticulous as I could see from day one and so I merely
copied him.

This is typical of the sloppy thinking of those who act as you do. You
insist that your opinion is backed by an authoritative truth, and then we
find out later that you essentially, made it up.

For a long time you have claimed that there is a "Strunk and White" of
Usenet style provided by Google. Now that you have been asked to produce it,
you say "I copied Tom Sherman".

I did the Google search you recommended and I read some the documents. If
you had done that you would find that top-posting is controversial. There
are absolutely some who say you shouldn't do it but there are others who say
that top-posting should not be universally condemned and that it has its
place.

Here is the bottom line of this topic. Produce the document that you have
been resting your opinion on or cease to criticize people for how they
choose to post.

You copied Tom Sherman. Good for you. I have no idea how long he has been
involved with Usenet. I do know that I have been involved with Usenet for a
long time and I was on "Chat BBS's" (which are not chat rooms as we think of
them today but rather they were text-only, topic based message boards)
before there was Usenet.

If we are just going to work on "oral tradition" then mine goes back quite
far.

I think you are guilty of everything that you accuse liberals of. For
someone who is "supposedly" as well educated as you claim to be (I don't
believe anything you say anymore. You are like "Weekly World News",
something to read strictly for entertainment), your thinking is weak. You
make claims of authority that you can't really substantiate and hope that
nobody will check.

Jeff

And as long as we are on the topic of unjust criticism of Usenet style....

Peter Clinch has a link to his personal website. If you look at it and in
particular look at his bio, you will find that his signature is spot on.
There is nothing about it to criticize. It is simply an accurate statement
of his title. I'll grant you that some university titles can get long but as
they go, his is rather short and seems to describe what he does and where he
works.

Note to Peter: If I ever make it to Scotland (and I do hope to cycle there
someday), perhaps we can play Go. I used to call myself 15 Kyu but I haven't
been playing regularly these days so I'd say 20 Kyu is probably more
accurate. Regardless of how well or poorly I play, however, I really enjoy
the game. I find it has a beauty that seems to be missing from the more
popular Chess to which it is often compared. I also enjoy the 13x13 game
because you can usually get one or two games in to one lunch hour as opposed
to the standard 19x19 which can easily take more time. Also the 13x13 allows
for situations to occur that the 9x9 game does not. How many 9x9 games have
a meaningful ko fight? It happens in 13x13.

Jeff

"Jeff Grippe" wrote in message
...

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
news
I learned from Tom Sherman the proper way to post to Usenet. He was
always correct and quite meticulous as I could see from day one and so I
merely copied him.

This is typical of the sloppy thinking of those who act as you do. You
insist that your opinion is backed by an authoritative truth, and then we
find out later that you essentially, made it up.

Do a search under "top posting" and you will come up with a plethora of
websites explaining why top posting is for the birds.

To get you started, go he

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...ng&btnG=Search

I used to have a lot of information on the evils of top posting saved to My
Documents, but they are long gone. It is just so elementary I never thought
I would be called upon to justify bottom posting. Trust me on this, top
posting is for idiots and scoundrels and you should not be caught dead doing
it.

For a long time you have claimed that there is a "Strunk and White" of
Usenet style provided by Google. Now that you have been asked to produce
it, you say "I copied Tom Sherman".

I did the Google search you recommended and I read some the documents. If
you had done that you would find that top-posting is controversial. There
are absolutely some who say you shouldn't do it but there are others who
say that top-posting should not be universally condemned and that it has
its place.

Do a search under "top posting" and you will come up with a plethora of
websites explaining why top posting is for the birds.

To get you started, go he

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...ng&btnG=Search

I used to have a lot of information on the evils of top posting saved to My
Documents, but they are long gone. It is just so elementary I never thought
I would be called upon to justify bottom posting. Trust me on this, top
posting is for idiots and scoundrels and you should not be caught dead doing
it.

Here is the bottom line of this topic. Produce the document that you have
been resting your opinion on or cease to criticize people for how they
choose to post.

Do a search under "top posting" and you will come up with a plethora of
websites explaining why top posting is for the birds.

To get you started, go he

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...ng&btnG=Search

I used to have a lot of information on the evils of top posting saved to My
Documents, but they are long gone. It is just so elementary I never thought
I would be called upon to justify bottom posting. Trust me on this, top
posting is for idiots and scoundrels and you should not be caught dead doing
it.

You copied Tom Sherman. Good for you. I have no idea how long he has been
involved with Usenet. I do know that I have been involved with Usenet for
a long time and I was on "Chat BBS's" (which are not chat rooms as we
think of them today but rather they were text-only, topic based message
boards) before there was Usenet.

If we are just going to work on "oral tradition" then mine goes back quite
far.

I think you are guilty of everything that you accuse liberals of. For
someone who is "supposedly" as well educated as you claim to be (I don't
believe anything you say anymore. You are like "Weekly World News",
something to read strictly for entertainment), your thinking is weak. You
make claims of authority that you can't really substantiate and hope that
nobody will check.

Do a search under "top posting" and you will come up with a plethora of
websites explaining why top posting is for the birds.

To get you started, go he

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...ng&btnG=Search

I used to have a lot of information on the evils of top posting saved to My
Documents, but they are long gone. It is just so elementary I never thought
I would be called upon to justify bottom posting. Trust me on this, top
posting is for idiots and scoundrels and you should not be caught dead doing
it.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"Jeff Grippe" wrote in message
...
And as long as we are on the topic of unjust criticism of Usenet style....

Peter Clinch has a link to his personal website. If you look at it and in
particular look at his bio, you will find that his signature is spot on.
There is nothing about it to criticize. It is simply an accurate statement
of his title. I'll grant you that some university titles can get long but
as they go, his is rather short and seems to describe what he does and
where he works.
[...]

Peter Clinck is an idiot of the first rank. He can post his freaking
credentials when he is communicating with his colleagues (although they
would laugh at him if he did), but anything other than that is in very bad
taste. Who gives a rat's ass about any of his titles on these cycling
newsgroups? No one else does it, but that does not prevent him from doing
it - does it? That is why I regard him as an idiot, deserving only of my
disdain and contempt.

Jeff needs to work some on his signature from my point of view. Just plain
'Jeff ' is revolting. Here is a suggestion.... 'Jeff - Smart-Ass New York
Jew.'

I am the only person in the entire history of Usenet to have a proper
signature. It is honest, succinct and yet modest. Most importantly, it tells
you who I REALLY am!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Ed, your endless repitition does not make it correct. I did the search and
what's more I read the results. Top-posting is not the universally regarded
evil that you claim it is. You obviously did not bother to read any opinion
that didn't agree with yours which is typical of your kind. If you read
"Knots" by R.D. Laing, I fear you took it a bit too seriously.

So go ahead and shout back your familiar "ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS". Heck
do it three or four times while your at it. Since the opinions (and that is
all they are is opinions) are there for people to read who choose to do the
search, then a thinking person will discover that a range of opinions
exists. If your claim ultimately rests on the authority of oral tradition
then mine goes back quite a bit further than yours.

Jeff

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Grippe" wrote in message
...

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
news
I learned from Tom Sherman the proper way to post to Usenet. He was
always correct and quite meticulous as I could see from day one and so I
merely copied him.

This is typical of the sloppy thinking of those who act as you do. You
insist that your opinion is backed by an authoritative truth, and then we
find out later that you essentially, made it up.

Do a search under "top posting" and you will come up with a plethora of
websites explaining why top posting is for the birds.

To get you started, go he

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...ng&btnG=Search

I used to have a lot of information on the evils of top posting saved to
My
Documents, but they are long gone. It is just so elementary I never
thought
I would be called upon to justify bottom posting. Trust me on this, top
posting is for idiots and scoundrels and you should not be caught dead
doing
it.

For a long time you have claimed that there is a "Strunk and White" of
Usenet style provided by Google. Now that you have been asked to produce
it, you say "I copied Tom Sherman".

I did the Google search you recommended and I read some the documents. If
you had done that you would find that top-posting is controversial. There
are absolutely some who say you shouldn't do it but there are others who
say that top-posting should not be universally condemned and that it has
its place.

Do a search under "top posting" and you will come up with a plethora of
websites explaining why top posting is for the birds.

To get you started, go he

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...ng&btnG=Search

I used to have a lot of information on the evils of top posting saved to
My
Documents, but they are long gone. It is just so elementary I never
thought
I would be called upon to justify bottom posting. Trust me on this, top
posting is for idiots and scoundrels and you should not be caught dead
doing
it.

Here is the bottom line of this topic. Produce the document that you have
been resting your opinion on or cease to criticize people for how they
choose to post.

Do a search under "top posting" and you will come up with a plethora of
websites explaining why top posting is for the birds.

To get you started, go he

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...ng&btnG=Search

I used to have a lot of information on the evils of top posting saved to
My
Documents, but they are long gone. It is just so elementary I never
thought
I would be called upon to justify bottom posting. Trust me on this, top
posting is for idiots and scoundrels and you should not be caught dead
doing
it.

You copied Tom Sherman. Good for you. I have no idea how long he has been
involved with Usenet. I do know that I have been involved with Usenet for
a long time and I was on "Chat BBS's" (which are not chat rooms as we
think of them today but rather they were text-only, topic based message
boards) before there was Usenet.

If we are just going to work on "oral tradition" then mine goes back
quite far.

I think you are guilty of everything that you accuse liberals of. For
someone who is "supposedly" as well educated as you claim to be (I don't
believe anything you say anymore. You are like "Weekly World News",
something to read strictly for entertainment), your thinking is weak. You
make claims of authority that you can't really substantiate and hope that
nobody will check.

Do a search under "top posting" and you will come up with a plethora of
websites explaining why top posting is for the birds.

To get you started, go he

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...ng&btnG=Search

I used to have a lot of information on the evils of top posting saved to
My
Documents, but they are long gone. It is just so elementary I never
thought
I would be called upon to justify bottom posting. Trust me on this, top
posting is for idiots and scoundrels and you should not be caught dead
doing
it.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

I fear I am getting sucked into another conversation with Ed Dolan.

Dumb-Ass New York Jew would probably be better since I don't know enough to
leave it alone.

Jeff

PS

If I start a thread on ARBR, please do not cross post it to RBM. If you
start a thread then you can post and cross post it wherever you like. Leave
my threads alone. The RBM people aren't interested and don't like it. Heck
I'll be a lot of the ARBR people wish I wouldn't do this again.

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
news:TZadnayCPv_y09DZnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@prairiewave. com...

"Jeff Grippe" wrote in message
...
And as long as we are on the topic of unjust criticism of Usenet
style....

Peter Clinch has a link to his personal website. If you look at it and in
particular look at his bio, you will find that his signature is spot on.
There is nothing about it to criticize. It is simply an accurate
statement of his title. I'll grant you that some university titles can
get long but as they go, his is rather short and seems to describe what
he does and where he works.
[...]

Peter Clinck is an idiot of the first rank. He can post his freaking
credentials when he is communicating with his colleagues (although they
would laugh at him if he did), but anything other than that is in very bad
taste. Who gives a rat's ass about any of his titles on these cycling
newsgroups? No one else does it, but that does not prevent him from doing
it - does it? That is why I regard him as an idiot, deserving only of my
disdain and contempt.

Jeff needs to work some on his signature from my point of view. Just plain
'Jeff ' is revolting. Here is a suggestion.... 'Jeff - Smart-Ass New York
Jew.'

I am the only person in the entire history of Usenet to have a proper
signature. It is honest, succinct and yet modest. Most importantly, it
tells you who I REALLY am!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Jeff,

I followed Ed's link and did not find a definitive answer. In fact,
they seem to talk about the original Usenet where top posting WAS
considered in poor taste, but with todays newsreaders top posting is,
to many, the perferred way in many instances such as this. Ed just has
too much short-term memory loss and shouldn't be on Usenet in the first
place, but he just doesn't get it.

Enjoy,

Perry Butler




Jeff Grippe wrote:
Ed, your endless repitition does not make it correct. I did the search and
what's more I read the results. Top-posting is not the universally regarded
evil that you claim it is. You obviously did not bother to read any opinion
that didn't agree with yours which is typical of your kind. If you read
"Knots" by R.D. Laing, I fear you took it a bit too seriously.

So go ahead and shout back your familiar "ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS". Heck
do it three or four times while your at it. Since the opinions (and that is
all they are is opinions) are there for people to read who choose to do the
search, then a thinking person will discover that a range of opinions
exists. If your claim ultimately rests on the authority of oral tradition
then mine goes back quite a bit further than yours.

Jeff

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Grippe" wrote in message
...

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
news
I learned from Tom Sherman the proper way to post to Usenet. He was
always correct and quite meticulous as I could see from day one and so I
merely copied him.

This is typical of the sloppy thinking of those who act as you do. You
insist that your opinion is backed by an authoritative truth, and then we
find out later that you essentially, made it up.

Do a search under "top posting" and you will come up with a plethora of
websites explaining why top posting is for the birds.

To get you started, go he

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...ng&btnG=Search

I used to have a lot of information on the evils of top posting saved to
My
Documents, but they are long gone. It is just so elementary I never
thought
I would be called upon to justify bottom posting. Trust me on this, top
posting is for idiots and scoundrels and you should not be caught dead
doing
it.

For a long time you have claimed that there is a "Strunk and White" of
Usenet style provided by Google. Now that you have been asked to produce
it, you say "I copied Tom Sherman".

I did the Google search you recommended and I read some the documents. If
you had done that you would find that top-posting is controversial. There
are absolutely some who say you shouldn't do it but there are others who
say that top-posting should not be universally condemned and that it has
its place.

Do a search under "top posting" and you will come up with a plethora of
websites explaining why top posting is for the birds.

To get you started, go he

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...ng&btnG=Search

I used to have a lot of information on the evils of top posting saved to
My
Documents, but they are long gone. It is just so elementary I never
thought
I would be called upon to justify bottom posting. Trust me on this, top
posting is for idiots and scoundrels and you should not be caught dead
doing
it.

Here is the bottom line of this topic. Produce the document that you have
been resting your opinion on or cease to criticize people for how they
choose to post.

Do a search under "top posting" and you will come up with a plethora of
websites explaining why top posting is for the birds.

To get you started, go he

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...ng&btnG=Search

I used to have a lot of information on the evils of top posting saved to
My
Documents, but they are long gone. It is just so elementary I never
thought
I would be called upon to justify bottom posting. Trust me on this, top
posting is for idiots and scoundrels and you should not be caught dead
doing
it.

You copied Tom Sherman. Good for you. I have no idea how long he has been
involved with Usenet. I do know that I have been involved with Usenet for
a long time and I was on "Chat BBS's" (which are not chat rooms as we
think of them today but rather they were text-only, topic based message
boards) before there was Usenet.

If we are just going to work on "oral tradition" then mine goes back
quite far.

I think you are guilty of everything that you accuse liberals of. For
someone who is "supposedly" as well educated as you claim to be (I don't
believe anything you say anymore. You are like "Weekly World News",
something to read strictly for entertainment), your thinking is weak. You
make claims of authority that you can't really substantiate and hope that
nobody will check.

Do a search under "top posting" and you will come up with a plethora of
websites explaining why top posting is for the birds.

To get you started, go he

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...ng&btnG=Search

I used to have a lot of information on the evils of top posting saved to
My
Documents, but they are long gone. It is just so elementary I never
thought
I would be called upon to justify bottom posting. Trust me on this, top
posting is for idiots and scoundrels and you should not be caught dead
doing
it.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota