Re: Apple To Allow Third Party Apps ON iPhone

In article <5od8ncFm3kcrU1@mid.individual.net>,
PeterPanNOSPAM@AkamailNOSPAM.com says...

> ByTor wrote:
> > In article <9AJTi.593$Jg.468@fe095.usenetserver.com>,
> > elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com says...
> >
> >> At 24 Oct 2007 07:35:57 -0400 ByTor wrote:
> >>
> >>> When you read a book do you read from the bottom up.
>
> Gee, I'm sort of wondering when you "post" a letter in the mailbox, do you
> put it in the slot up top, or bring a hacksaw/drill to open the bottom so
> you can shove it on the bottom? :)

I guess that would be kinda funny eh........

Well as I only asked a question, innocently, maybe I should throw in a
sort of explanation.

When a thread is added on, yes some do keep the content without
snipping. The *whole* dialogue, in case I missed the first OP, I find,
can be read much easier on who is replying to who reading from the top
down rather than the bottom up. Now in the case of a top poster, very
very small population of **newsgroups**, it throws the thread off. I
don't care either way cus I will continue to do what appears to be the
*predominant* way of posting in the NG's. This is not an email group, or
a mailbox. I only show the respect of what is **more** consistently
done. In a way it's being a positive conformist and I respect the
**predominant** method. If people wanna do it *different* go right
ahead. I've been in NG's a loooooooong time and bottom posting takes the
cake so to speak. It's almost the same as idiots posting MTK to binary
newsgroups, get with the times.

But as I said, I don't care either way & won't spend my life arguing it.
The above is my opinion on my take on the situation. I could give a rats
ass how people post. Personally, I ignore top posters because its a pain
in the ass for me and I don't want to be bothered with fixing the thread
when I reply. Many many requests & conversations I ignore because of it
when I'm involved with binary groups.

ByTor wrote:
> PeterPanNOSPAM@AkamailNOSPAM.com says...
>> ByTor wrote:
>> >>> When you read a book do you read from the bottom up.
>>
>> Gee, I'm sort of wondering when you "post" a letter in the mailbox, do you
>> put it in the slot up top, or bring a hacksaw/drill to open the bottom so
>> you can shove it on the bottom? :)
>
> I guess that would be kinda funny eh........

When you get on a horse, do you get on from the top or bottom? Neither!
You get on from the side! So side-posting is the way to go. Except that
when you go into orbit, do you approach the orbit from above or below?
And when popcorn pops, is it the top kernels or the bottom kernels that
pop first?

What the hell does any of this, especially putting letters in mailboxes,
have to do with top-posting?

Top posting started when Microsoft made their stupid broken news software
and people were too lazy to do a couple of extra clicks to circumvent the
brokenness. It's that simple.

--
One meter, to within 0.0125% accuracy (off by just under .005 inches):
Three feet
Three inches
Three eights of an inch

In article <8dg9v4-05c.ln1@remote.clifto.com>,
clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote:

> ByTor wrote:
> > PeterPanNOSPAM@AkamailNOSPAM.com says...
> >> ByTor wrote:
> >> >>> When you read a book do you read from the bottom up.
> >>
> >> Gee, I'm sort of wondering when you "post" a letter in the mailbox, do you
> >> put it in the slot up top, or bring a hacksaw/drill to open the bottom so
> >> you can shove it on the bottom? :)
> >
> > I guess that would be kinda funny eh........
>
> When you get on a horse, do you get on from the top or bottom? Neither!
> You get on from the side! So side-posting is the way to go. Except that
> when you go into orbit, do you approach the orbit from above or below?
> And when popcorn pops, is it the top kernels or the bottom kernels that
> pop first?
>
> What the hell does any of this, especially putting letters in mailboxes,
> have to do with top-posting?
>
> Top posting started when Microsoft made their stupid broken news software
> and people were too lazy to do a couple of extra clicks to circumvent the
> brokenness. It's that simple.


yes it is. making matters worse, internet access was expanding
exponentially at that time and scads of illiterates, both in general
and usenet-illiterates discovered the internet and had no one to
mentor them.

even then, most were sufficiently wise to stop top posting as soon as
someone explained it to them.

--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com

daffydd does bring about a good question, while the 14 year olds fight over
how to post, what was this originally about many weeks ago?

And yes you may not be 14, you might be a sad 35 year old still living in
your mom's basement. Any idea why or much too busy prepping your costume for
the Trekkie convention?

"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-7A7963.23023224102007@individual.net...
> In article <b9adnWj39-h9n73anZ2dnUVZ_tqtnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> "Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:jgkeegan-9CA4DD.22194724102007@individual.net...
>> > In article <AvmdnQllz6Cqd4LanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>
>> >> > top-posting once defines the poster as usenet illiterate.
>> >> >
>> >> > top posting twice defines the poster as rude and illiterate.
>> >> >
>> >> > top posting more than twice defines the poster as obstinately
>> >> > ignorant.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Bitching incessantly about it defines the poster as a sanctimonious
>> >> asshole.
>> >
>> > then you admit you are a "sanctimonious asshole" since you have
>> > posted on the topic far more than i have. i agree with your self
>> > evaluation.
>> >>
>> >> Labeling someone based only because of how they post is shortsighted
>> >> and
>> >> close-minded.
>> >
>> > on the contrary, it is a response to visible events, and a fair one.
>> >
>> >> Posting the same lame crap as the above, makes the poster a
>> >> pretentious
>> >> jerk.
>> >
>> > then why did you do it? are you saying you are also a "pretentious
>> > jerk?"
>> >
>> > you've been labeled a hypocrite before, haven't you?
>> >
>>
>> The last response is certainly predictable - and VERY typical - for a
>> prick
>> know it all.
>
> don't be so hard on yourself. you've recognized your flaws so,
> perhaps, you can begin to correct them
>
>> The key differential here is that I didn't comment a SINGLE word on
>> someone's
>> posting method until
>
> which is your admission you did exactly as i said.
>
> run along.
>
> --
> "New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
> been warned."
> -- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
> in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com
>
>

*illiterate top post reformatted as a courtesy to readers*

In article
<vKsUi.280602$ax1.199081@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"William Sheehan, Jr." <w.sheehan@remove.worldnet dot att dot net>
wrote:
>
> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jgkeegan-7A7963.23023224102007@individual.net...
> > In article <b9adnWj39-h9n73anZ2dnUVZ_tqtnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> > "Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:jgkeegan-9CA4DD.22194724102007@individual.net...
> >> > In article <AvmdnQllz6Cqd4LanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> >>
> >> >> > top-posting once defines the poster as usenet illiterate.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > top posting twice defines the poster as rude and illiterate.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > top posting more than twice defines the poster as obstinately
> >> >> > ignorant.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Bitching incessantly about it defines the poster as a sanctimonious
> >> >> asshole.
> >> >
> >> > then you admit you are a "sanctimonious asshole" since you have
> >> > posted on the topic far more than i have. i agree with your self
> >> > evaluation.
> >> >>
> >> >> Labeling someone based only because of how they post is shortsighted
> >> >> and
> >> >> close-minded.
> >> >
> >> > on the contrary, it is a response to visible events, and a fair one.
> >> >
> >> >> Posting the same lame crap as the above, makes the poster a
> >> >> pretentious
> >> >> jerk.
> >> >
> >> > then why did you do it? are you saying you are also a "pretentious
> >> > jerk?"
> >> >
> >> > you've been labeled a hypocrite before, haven't you?
> >> >
> >>
> >> The last response is certainly predictable - and VERY typical - for a
> >> prick
> >> know it all.
> >
> > don't be so hard on yourself. you've recognized your flaws so,
> > perhaps, you can begin to correct them
> >
> >> The key differential here is that I didn't comment a SINGLE word on
> >> someone's
> >> posting method until
> >
> > which is your admission you did exactly as i said.
> >
> > run along.
>
> daffydd does bring about a good question, while the 14 year olds fight over
> how to post, what was this originally about many weeks ago?
>
> And yes you may not be 14, you might be a sad 35 year old still living in
> your mom's basement. Any idea why or much too busy prepping your costume for
> the Trekkie convention?

thus, my comments are validated. *smirk*

--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com

What was validated... that you are a sad 35 year old living in your mothers
basement? Or you have nothing to worry about but the latest klingon
dictionary and who posts where?

Sorry got to go, big people stuff to do and all!!


"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-B10A96.18032526102007@individual.net...
> *illiterate top post reformatted as a courtesy to readers*
>
> In article
> <vKsUi.280602$ax1.199081@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "William Sheehan, Jr." <w.sheehan@remove.worldnet dot att dot net>
> wrote:
>>
>> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:jgkeegan-7A7963.23023224102007@individual.net...
>> > In article <b9adnWj39-h9n73anZ2dnUVZ_tqtnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> > "Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:jgkeegan-9CA4DD.22194724102007@individual.net...
>> >> > In article <AvmdnQllz6Cqd4LanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> >>
>> >> >> > top-posting once defines the poster as usenet illiterate.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > top posting twice defines the poster as rude and illiterate.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > top posting more than twice defines the poster as obstinately
>> >> >> > ignorant.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Bitching incessantly about it defines the poster as a sanctimonious
>> >> >> asshole.
>> >> >
>> >> > then you admit you are a "sanctimonious asshole" since you have
>> >> > posted on the topic far more than i have. i agree with your self
>> >> > evaluation.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Labeling someone based only because of how they post is
>> >> >> shortsighted
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> close-minded.
>> >> >
>> >> > on the contrary, it is a response to visible events, and a fair one.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Posting the same lame crap as the above, makes the poster a
>> >> >> pretentious
>> >> >> jerk.
>> >> >
>> >> > then why did you do it? are you saying you are also a "pretentious
>> >> > jerk?"
>> >> >
>> >> > you've been labeled a hypocrite before, haven't you?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> The last response is certainly predictable - and VERY typical - for a
>> >> prick
>> >> know it all.
>> >
>> > don't be so hard on yourself. you've recognized your flaws so,
>> > perhaps, you can begin to correct them
>> >
>> >> The key differential here is that I didn't comment a SINGLE word on
>> >> someone's
>> >> posting method until
>> >
>> > which is your admission you did exactly as i said.
>> >
>> > run along.
>>
>> daffydd does bring about a good question, while the 14 year olds fight
>> over
>> how to post, what was this originally about many weeks ago?
>>
>> And yes you may not be 14, you might be a sad 35 year old still living in
>> your mom's basement. Any idea why or much too busy prepping your costume
>> for
>> the Trekkie convention?
>
> thus, my comments are validated. *smirk*
>
> --
> "New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
> been warned."
> -- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
> in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com
>
>

In article <OHlVi.33147$kj1.50@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"William Sheehan, Jr." <w.sheehan@remove.worldnet dot att dot net>
wrote:

> What was validated... that you are a sad 35 year old living in your mothers
> basement? Or you have nothing to worry about but the latest klingon
> dictionary and who posts where?
>
> Sorry got to go, big people stuff to do and all!!
>
>
Hmm, another guy obsessing about the thought of a guy living in his
mother's basement.
What is it with this group?

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"