Brad nailer used for ?

[Odinn]

Oh, like you did? Can you say hypocrite? I thought you could. Carry on you little snot-nosed whiner.

[CW]

It will prevail. Wait and see. I get damned tired of you bottom posters trying to make me wear out my scroll wheel.

[CW]

More an more people are seeing the light all the time.

[Ron Magen]

[Larry Jaques]

On Fri, 13 May 2005 16:09:23 -0400, the inscrutable Dave Hall spake:

No, the most annoying possible thing on usenet is people who feel the need to support these jerks' antisocial behavior which make Usenet posts harder to read and followup.

Why didn't you, while you were at it, Dave? Hmmm?

------ We're born hungry, wet, 'n naked, and it gets worse from there. -

Website Application Programming -

[Robert Bonomi]

Hint: if you weren't such an ass about so many things -- you wouldn't have those problems. But you are, and you do.

Live with it.

>

[Robert Bonomi]

Top-posted expressly for Clinton's "convenience,"

A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.

Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

A: Top-posting.

Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

[CW]

well-documented,

"significant"

[CW]

[william]

{{ Fully top-posted expressly for Clifton -- each line of follow-up added above the older material. }}

know how unlikely that is, right? possible explanation is that he is deliberately being an ass. And we all With what he "knows", top-posting is appropriate. After all, the other

not read _all_ the articles in the thread up to that point. (d) a 'search engine' would never display an article to someone who had answer to a question. (c) nobody would ever consider looking through 'old' messages to find an (b) No one else has any interest in the matter. response within an hour or two of time they wrote *their* message. (a) The person who wrote the item to which he is responding will see that Clinton "knows" that:

individuals. MOST people's "limit" is in the 'a few dozen' range. a couple of _hundred_ tends to be beyond the scope of all but very rare track of half-a-dozen 'conversations' is one thing. Keeping track of is exposed to, the _shorter_ the continuity retention span is. keeping *AND* the more 'distractions' -- other, unrelated material, that the person circa 15-20 minutes. Five minutes to write, vs. one minute to read. context for a couple of hours, the _spectator's_ recall is only good for while the _author_ of a relatively brief casual communication may retain read it much faster than they wrote it. Experimental evidence has shown that it was something that you had written yourself. In large part, because you writing does _not_ set it in 'short term' memory any nearly as firmly as if of attention is *much* shorter. For starters, merely reading someone else's Now, for a 'passive spectator' to such communications, the "continuity span"

for around a week. to produce a screed, you'll have the relevant recall 'at your fingertips' is needed. On the other hand, if it took you an entire working day posting it, then, if you see a reply within a couple of hours, no 'context' you spent all of five minutes reading an article, composing a reply, and of time spent on the original composition, for _most_ people. i.e., if The "comparatively short" threshold seems to be around 10-20 times the amount

first _is_ optimal. in producing the _original_ communication -- then placing the reply turns out to correlate very highly with the amount of time/effort spent short -- what qualifies as 'comparatively short _does_ vary, but it until that same persons _reads_ the other person's response is comparatively *AND* the 'turn-around time' (from the time one person sends a message *IF* the communications involve a conversation between _two_ people,

systems -- that has shown the following: necessarily USENET postings, but involving other store-and-forward messaging "continuity of thought patterns") done on the basic subject -- not There has been significant academic research (the general subject is

following. memory the 'current state' of every "conversation' that they have been period of time -- even if only a few _days_ -- does *not* have committed to a number of different newsgroups, and/or anyone who may let a "significant" Anyone who follows a sizeable number of message threads, particularly in

reas>It will prevail. Wait and see. I get damned tired of you bottom posters

[Lawrence Wasserman]

Q: What is the most annoying thing about usenet?

A: Stupid off-topic discussions in every newgroup about top posting being better/worse than bottom posting.

[Dave Hinz]

Funny, I thought it was people posting with no context to show what or who they're talking about.

[Dave Hall]

otherwise

I guess I just am not a good little usenetter dweeb :-)

Dave Hall

[mac davis]

don't despair, Dave... at least you're a good dweeb..

mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

[Old Nick]

Wasn't a Brad Nailer really what Dr. Frank-N-Furter was after........?