"Magda" <magda@eu> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:16:24 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, "Alan Holmes"
> <[email protected]> arranged some electrons, so they looked like
> this:
>
> ...
> ... "Magda" <magda@eu> wrote in message
> ... news:[email protected]...
> ... > On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:13:02 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, "Kev'"
> ... > <[email protected]>
> ... > arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:
> ... >
> ... > ...
> ... > ... What newsreader do you use Tunku out of curiosity. I've been
> using
> ... > Outlook
> ... > ... which I'm not overly enthusiastic about. I seen one called
> forteagent
> ... > which
> ... > ... looks excellent just haven't gotten round to giving it a go
> ... >
> ... > Try Agent - you'll never look back.
> ...
> ... I've been using OE for about 35 years and never ever had any trouble
> with
> ... it.
>
> I had no idea Usenet was *that* old.
>

Usenet is about that old, but OE is not. The bottom posting came about
because we used KSR-33 Teletypes as input devices. Was hard to edit the
received stream, and you typed at the bottom of the message. The VT-52 CRT
monitors were similar, so you always got bottom posting. So I guess most of
these people are living in the past. I think top posting is nice for a
quick response. Do not have to go the bottom of the message to see the
response.

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 20:32:13 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, "Calif Bill"
<[email protected]> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:

...
... Usenet is about that old, but OE is not. The bottom posting came about
... because we used KSR-33 Teletypes as input devices. Was hard to edit the
... received stream, and you typed at the bottom of the message. The VT-52 CRT
... monitors were similar, so you always got bottom posting. So I guess most of
... these people are living in the past. I think top posting is nice for a
... quick response. Do not have to go the bottom of the message to see the
... response.

That's what snipping is for.

In article <[email protected] et>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "Magda" <magda@eu> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:16:24 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, "Alan Holmes"
> > <[email protected]> arranged some electrons, so they looked like
> > this:
> >
> > ...
> > ... "Magda" <magda@eu> wrote in message
> > ... news:[email protected]...
> > ... > On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:13:02 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, "Kev'"
> > ... > <[email protected]>
> > ... > arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:
> > ... >
> > ... > ...
> > ... > ... What newsreader do you use Tunku out of curiosity. I've been
> > using
> > ... > Outlook
> > ... > ... which I'm not overly enthusiastic about. I seen one called
> > forteagent
> > ... > which
> > ... > ... looks excellent just haven't gotten round to giving it a go
> > ... >
> > ... > Try Agent - you'll never look back.
> > ...
> > ... I've been using OE for about 35 years and never ever had any trouble
> > with
> > ... it.
> >
> > I had no idea Usenet was *that* old.
> >
>
> Usenet is about that old, but OE is not. The bottom posting came about
> because we used KSR-33 Teletypes as input devices. Was hard to edit the
> received stream, and you typed at the bottom of the message. The VT-52 CRT
> monitors were similar, so you always got bottom posting. So I guess most of
> these people are living in the past. I think top posting is nice for a
> quick response. Do not have to go the bottom of the message to see the
> response.
>
>
>

Well, if abandoning the concept of living in the past is the only
criterion, them let's give up driving on the left. Who do these people
think they are, dictating which side of the road I should drive on?

--
Halmyre

SteveH <[email protected]> wrote:

> Deeply Filled Mortician <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu>
> wrote:
>
> > >Windows 1.0 was launched in November 1985. It was a pile of poo, a
> > >tradition that has been consistently maintained right the way up to the
> > >present day.
> >
> > Windows is not bad.

No, bad certainly does not go far enough to describe the minging pile of
shite that is Windows.

> > Not great, but better than anything else that's
> > been available.

That's not even close to being true.

> > The alternative is to go Mac, but be prepared to change worlds - and
> > open your wallet!
>
> Where did this gem of 'knowledge' come from?

Made up like all of the drivel that Windows FanBoys spout.

Calif Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

> The bottom posting came about because we used KSR-33 Teletypes as input
> devices. Was hard to edit the received stream, and you typed at the
> bottom of the message.

That's complete horseshit.

With KSR-33s one didn't quote back any context. Not unless one was as
mad as a box of frogs. Quoting context really came in with Vistar
terminals and the like.

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 22:40:55 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve
Firth) arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:

... SteveH <[email protected]> wrote:
...
... > Deeply Filled Mortician <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu>
... > wrote:
... >
... > > >Windows 1.0 was launched in November 1985. It was a pile of poo, a
... > > >tradition that has been consistently maintained right the way up to the
... > > >present day.
... > >
... > > Windows is not bad.
...
... No, bad certainly does not go far enough to describe the minging pile of
... shite that is Windows.
...
... > > Not great, but better than anything else that's
... > > been available.
...
... That's not even close to being true.
...
... > > The alternative is to go Mac, but be prepared to change worlds - and
... > > open your wallet!
... >
... > Where did this gem of 'knowledge' come from?
...
... Made up like all of the drivel that Windows FanBoys spout.

Check the prices in Europe - Macs' go though the roof.

(No, UK does not qualify as "Europe").

Magda <magda@eu> wrote:

> Check the prices in Europe - Macs' go though the roof.
>
> (No, UK does not qualify as "Europe").

More bullshit.

A quick look at the Apple .fr store reveals that the MacBook is 1099
Euros, or, roughly £750.

At the UK store, it's £749.

What were you saying again?
--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

Deeply Filled Mortician <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu>
wrote:

> >So, in conclusion, you're talking shite.
>
> Gawd, here we go again with a bunch of passionate Mac defending
> diatribe with a few ousting clauses like '"quality computer hardware"
> and "same functionality".

We'd be right, though.

Apple hardware can't be compared with cheap generic hardware, just as
OSX can't be compared with the basic version of Vista.

Apple hardware is pitched to compete with IBM / HP / Compaq etc., and
OSX is equivalent to Windows Vista Premium.
--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 23:00:00 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, [email protected] (SteveH)
arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:

... Magda <magda@eu> wrote:
...
... > Check the prices in Europe - Macs' go though the roof.
... >
... > (No, UK does not qualify as "Europe").
...
... More bullshit.
...
... A quick look at the Apple .fr store reveals that the MacBook is 1099
... Euros, or, roughly £750.
...
... At the UK store, it's £749.
...
... What were you saying again?

That you guys don't qualify as Europeans.

"Graham Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Alan Holmes" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> I've been using OE for about 35 years and never ever had any trouble with
>> it.
>
> On what hardware and OS? The IBM PC was launched in 1981, 26 years
> ago. Windows was later than that, and it was even later that Windows had
> a native TCP/IP stack.

For your information, the internet was started by the Americans as a means
of interaction between universities and state departments, this was extended
to similar institutions in other parts of the world, I started to use it
sometime in the late 60s early 70s, my estimate of 35 years for OE was,
perhaps, a little bit over the top, but it has been around for a very long
time, with no problems.

The only problem I have with it is not to be able to stop crossposted
articles which can be a real nuisance.

"PC Paul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] k...
> uknewsfan wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:06:39 +0200, Deeply Filled Mortician
>
>>>
>>>Thunderbird is free, and good. Agent is my choice, but like Magda, I
>>>have an old version, and use is due to habit.
>>
>> latest agent for me...does OE support killfiles btw ?
>
> Yep.
>
> Select the message in the list then use Messages->Block sender.

Or Tools-Message rules-News

>
>

Make credence recognised that on Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:17:09 +0100,
[email protected] (SteveH) has scripted:

>Deeply Filled Mortician <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu>
>wrote:
>
>> >Windows 1.0 was launched in November 1985. It was a pile of poo, a
>> >tradition that has been consistently maintained right the way up to the
>> >present day.
>>
>> Windows is not bad. Not great, but better than anything else that's
>> been available.
>>
>> The alternative is to go Mac, but be prepared to change worlds - and
>> open your wallet!
>
>Where did this gem of 'knowledge' come from?
>
>Mac hardware is no more expensive than any other quality computer
>hardware. My MacBook was stupidly cheap when compared with a lot of the
>WinTel machines out there. The OS is actually *cheaper* than Windows if
>you want the same functionality.
>
>So, in conclusion, you're talking shite.

Gawd, here we go again with a bunch of passionate Mac defending
diatribe with a few ousting clauses like '"quality computer hardware"
and "same functionality".
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Magda <magda@eu> wrote:

> ... A quick look at the Apple .fr store reveals that the MacBook is 1099
> ... Euros, or, roughly £750.
> ...
> ... At the UK store, it's £749.
> ...
> ... What were you saying again?
>
> That you guys don't qualify as Europeans.

Erm, what has that got to do with the price of Mac hardware?

You said it was expensive in mainland Europe, I proved it was the same
price as in the UK.

Care to come up with some evidence of these expensive Macs?
--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 23:11:13 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, [email protected] (SteveH)
arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:

... Magda <magda@eu> wrote:
...
... > ... A quick look at the Apple .fr store reveals that the MacBook is 1099
... > ... Euros, or, roughly £750.
... > ...
... > ... At the UK store, it's £749.
... > ...
... > ... What were you saying again?
... >
... > That you guys don't qualify as Europeans.
...
... Erm, what has that got to do with the price of Mac hardware?
...
... You said it was expensive in mainland Europe, I proved it was the same
... price as in the UK.
...
... Care to come up with some evidence of these expensive Macs?

You only saw one price - check better, in several shops, in several countries. Macs are
always more expensive in the end.

Magda wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 23:11:13 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, [email protected] (SteveH)
> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:
>
> ... Magda <magda@eu> wrote:
> ...
> ... > ... A quick look at the Apple .fr store reveals that the MacBook is 1099
> ... > ... Euros, or, roughly £750.
> ... > ...
> ... > ... At the UK store, it's £749.
> ... > ...
> ... > ... What were you saying again?
> ... >
> ... > That you guys don't qualify as Europeans.
> ...
> ... Erm, what has that got to do with the price of Mac hardware?
> ...
> ... You said it was expensive in mainland Europe, I proved it was the same
> ... price as in the UK.
> ...
> ... Care to come up with some evidence of these expensive Macs?
>
> You only saw one price - check better, in several shops, in several countries. Macs are
> always more expensive in the end.
>
If so and I'm not agreeing that this is the case, then the aggro free
operation makes it worth while. I can't remember when this Mac last
crashed (if it ever did) Windoze was regular, several time a day on
occasions.