On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 22:04:19 GMT, "Timothy Kroesen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Even though you've proven yourself wrong in that policy?

No I haven't, I have proven myself right.

Ok, where do we go from here?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
(tim \(moved to sweden\)) wrote:

    > *From:* "tim \(moved to sweden\)" <[email protected]>
    > *Date:* Sat, 27 Aug 2005 09:48:35 +0200
    >
    >
    > "quiqueg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected] ...
    > > Tim Challenger <[email protected]> wrote in
    > > news:1125054432.1ab6329f88e17897ce558487133f3330@t eranews:
    > >
    > >> surprisingly - German
    > >
    > > this might have to do with the fact that Austria was compelled by EU
    > > regulations to stop admission exams to univesities,
    >
    > This can't be the whole story. UK universities still have
    > admission exams and no EU regulation has stopped them

Only Oxford and Cambridge in recent history had entrance exams, and AIUI
they have pretty much abandoned them now (but not because of the EU).

----------------------------------------------
The poster formerly known as [email protected].

Martin wrote:

    > On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 12:34:01 +0100, DDT Filled Mormons
    > <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 22:04:19 GMT, "Timothy Kroesen"
    >><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>Even though you've proven yourself wrong in that policy?
    >>No I haven't, I have proven myself right.
    >>Ok, where do we go from here?
    >
    >
    > Ever decreasing circles?


One way to finally get to a point.

DDT Filled Mormons <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> writes:

    > Tell me, how should one deal with a chronic top-poster?

Put 'im in a killfile and just ignore 'im
Put 'im in a killfile and just ignore 'im
Put 'im in a killfile and just ignore 'im
Ear-lie in the morning

Des

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 17:52:19 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Martin wrote:
    >> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 12:34:01 +0100, DDT Filled Mormons
    >> <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 22:04:19 GMT, "Timothy Kroesen"
    >>><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>Even though you've proven yourself wrong in that policy?
    >>>No I haven't, I have proven myself right.
    >>>Ok, where do we go from here?
    >>
    >>
    >> Ever decreasing circles?
    >One way to finally get to a point.

Tell me, how should one deal with a chronic top-poster?

A number of us have asked him nicely, but it had no effect.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

DDT Filled Mormons wrote:
    >
    > On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 17:52:19 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >
    > >Martin wrote:
    > >
    > >> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 12:34:01 +0100, DDT Filled Mormons
    > >> <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 22:04:19 GMT, "Timothy Kroesen"
    > >>><[email protected]> wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>>Even though you've proven yourself wrong in that policy?
    > >>>
    > >>>No I haven't, I have proven myself right.
    > >>>
    > >>>Ok, where do we go from here?
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Ever decreasing circles?
    > >
    > >
    > >One way to finally get to a point.
    >
    > Tell me, how should one deal with a chronic top-poster?
    >
    > A number of us have asked him nicely, but it had no effect.
    > --
    > --

To me if you have to worry about top or bottom posting you are taking
computers entirely too seriously. I personally rather prefer the top
posting so that one does not have to bother to pour through a thread. I
should note, that I date from the period in computer communication when
you could only post, there was no such thing as top or bottom posting
because you could not include the previous post in your response. I
wonder if that may still not be best. I think top posting may still be
the default when using 'vi' to generate responses (although I haven't
used the workstation for that in many years now).
--
wf.

randee wrote:
    >
    > DDT Filled Mormons wrote:
    >
    >>On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 17:52:19 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
    >><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>Martin wrote:
    >>>>On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 12:34:01 +0100, DDT Filled Mormons
    >>>><deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
    >>>>>On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 22:04:19 GMT, "Timothy Kroesen"
    >>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>>Even though you've proven yourself wrong in that policy?
    >>>>>No I haven't, I have proven myself right.
    >>>>>Ok, where do we go from here?
    >>>>Ever decreasing circles?
    >>>One way to finally get to a point.
    >>Tell me, how should one deal with a chronic top-poster?
    >>A number of us have asked him nicely, but it had no effect.
    >>--
    >>--
    >
    >
    > To me if you have to worry about top or bottom posting you are taking
    > computers entirely too seriously. I personally rather prefer the top
    > posting so that one does not have to bother to pour through a thread. I
    > should note, that I date from the period in computer communication when
    > you could only post, there was no such thing as top or bottom posting
    > because you could not include the previous post in your response. I
    > wonder if that may still not be best. I think top posting may still be
    > the default when using 'vi' to generate responses (although I haven't
    > used the workstation for that in many years now).
    > --
    > wf.



Either can usually be set as a default. If you top post it is easier to
connect the name of the poster with the comment being posted. Sense has
never been a valued thing when computers are involved.

DDT Filled Mormons wrote:

    > On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 20:35:54 -0600, randee <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >DDT Filled Mormons wrote:
    > >>
    > >> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 17:52:19 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
    > >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> >Martin wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 12:34:01 +0100, DDT Filled Mormons
    > >> >> <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
    > >> >>
    > >> >>
    > >> >>>On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 22:04:19 GMT, "Timothy Kroesen"
    > >> >>><[email protected]> wrote:
    > >> >>>
    > >> >>>
    > >> >>>>Even though you've proven yourself wrong in that policy?
    > >> >>>
    > >> >>>No I haven't, I have proven myself right.
    > >> >>>
    > >> >>>Ok, where do we go from here?
    > >> >>
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Ever decreasing circles?
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> >One way to finally get to a point.
    > >>
    > >> Tell me, how should one deal with a chronic top-poster?
    > >>
    > >> A number of us have asked him nicely, but it had no effect.
    > >> --
    > >> --
    > >
    > >To me if you have to worry about top or bottom posting you are taking
    > >computers entirely too seriously. I personally rather prefer the top
    > >posting so that one does not have to bother to pour through a thread.
    > As do I, and that's just fine as long as EVERYONE does it. When you
    > have a mix of bottom and top posting, it becomes a complete mess.
    > For this reason I bottom post, as I believe everyone should do, simply
    > by convention.


IMNSHO top posting is simply rude and ill - mannered behaviour. Oh, and
it's grossly immature too... as far as I'm concerned those feeble - brained
individuals who insist upon always top - posting are suffering from
Narcissistic Personality Disorder...

Besides which, those who practice it automatically assume that what they
have to say is innately more important than what the person they are quoting
to is saying. Tain't always so...

--
Best
Greg

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 04:44:59 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Either can usually be set as a default. If you top post it is easier to
    >connect the name of the poster with the comment being posted.

In what way? I can see the name of the poster whether I top or bottom
post.
--
Martin

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 20:35:54 -0600, randee <[email protected]> wrote:

    >DDT Filled Mormons wrote:
    >>
    >> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 17:52:19 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >Martin wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 12:34:01 +0100, DDT Filled Mormons
    >> >> <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >>>On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 22:04:19 GMT, "Timothy Kroesen"
    >> >>><[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >>>
    >> >>>
    >> >>>>Even though you've proven yourself wrong in that policy?
    >> >>>
    >> >>>No I haven't, I have proven myself right.
    >> >>>
    >> >>>Ok, where do we go from here?
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> Ever decreasing circles?
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >One way to finally get to a point.
    >>
    >> Tell me, how should one deal with a chronic top-poster?
    >>
    >> A number of us have asked him nicely, but it had no effect.
    >> --
    >> --
    >To me if you have to worry about top or bottom posting you are taking
    >computers entirely too seriously. I personally rather prefer the top
    >posting so that one does not have to bother to pour through a thread.

As do I, and that's just fine as long as EVERYONE does it. When you
have a mix of bottom and top posting, it becomes a complete mess.

For this reason I bottom post, as I believe everyone should do, simply
by convention.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

DDT Filled Mormons <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:

[]
    > Tell me, how should one deal with a chronic top-poster?

You ignore them.

--
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
photos at http://homepage.mac.com/davidhornecomposer

Martin wrote:
    > On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 04:44:59 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Either can usually be set as a default. If you top post it is easier to
    >>connect the name of the poster with the comment being posted.
    >
    >
    > In what way? I can see the name of the poster whether I top or bottom
    > post.


The above shows this conversation when bottom posted. The below is how
it would look when top posted. The connection between your name and
your statement when bottom posted is not clear. One has to count > to
see what is mine and what is yours. If there are a number of
interactions the connection becomes ever more tenuous. When folks start
to delete positions there are often unclear connections. Especially
when your name is left in the list but all of your comments have been
deleted. It is not uncommon for the name of the actual poster to have
been deleted.

When top posting as below the name and the comment are kept together and
the connection is clearer. What becomes really creative is to mix the
two. That generates massive confusion.

Martin wrote:
>
> In what way? I can see the name of the poster whether I top or bottom
> post.
>
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 04:44:59 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Either can usually be set as a default. If you top post it is easier
>>to connect the name of the poster with the comment being posted.

Gregory Morrow wrote:

    > DDT Filled Mormons wrote:
    >
    >
    >>On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 20:35:54 -0600, randee <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>DDT Filled Mormons wrote:
    >>>>On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 17:52:19 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
    >>>><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>Martin wrote:
    >>>>>>On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 12:34:01 +0100, DDT Filled Mormons
    >>>>>><deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
    >>>>>>>On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 22:04:19 GMT, "Timothy Kroesen"
    >>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>Even though you've proven yourself wrong in that policy?
    >>>>>>>No I haven't, I have proven myself right.
    >>>>>>>Ok, where do we go from here?
    >>>>>>Ever decreasing circles?
    >>>>>One way to finally get to a point.
    >>>>Tell me, how should one deal with a chronic top-poster?
    >>>>A number of us have asked him nicely, but it had no effect.
    >>>>--
    >>>>--
    >>>To me if you have to worry about top or bottom posting you are taking
    >>>computers entirely too seriously. I personally rather prefer the top
    >>>posting so that one does not have to bother to pour through a thread.
    >>As do I, and that's just fine as long as EVERYONE does it. When you
    >>have a mix of bottom and top posting, it becomes a complete mess.
    >>For this reason I bottom post, as I believe everyone should do, simply
    >>by convention.
    >
    >
    >
    > IMNSHO top posting is simply rude and ill - mannered behaviour. Oh, and
    > it's grossly immature too... as far as I'm concerned those feeble - brained
    > individuals who insist upon always top - posting are suffering from
    > Narcissistic Personality Disorder...
    >
    > Besides which, those who practice it automatically assume that what they
    > have to say is innately more important than what the person they are quoting
    > to is saying. Tain't always so...
    >


No they would simply like their name to be clearly connected to their
comment. Others simply do not like scrolling thru massive text.

Of course the argument goes away if you simply delete all previous text.

As to rude what do you think of folks who insist on bottom posting even
when the thread history shows a sequence of top posting?

Bottom posters suffer from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder...

There, now everyone is nuts.

Frank F. Matthews <[email protected]> wrote:

[]
    > No they would simply like their name to be clearly connected to their
    > comment. Others simply do not like scrolling thru massive text.

So don't quote as much. You often tend to quote much more than you
really need to.

--
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
photos at http://homepage.mac.com/davidhornecomposer

The only EU influence would have been if Austria was applying
different rules for citizens of other EU countries from those applied
to its own.

PJW

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 09:01:31 -0500, [email protected] wrote:


    >> > this might have to do with the fact that Austria was compelled by EU
    >> > regulations to stop admission exams to univesities,