pond lifted due to rain

[Tak Sze]

I just recently built a 2000 gallon pond with concrete over liner. The
pond has not been filled with water yet. However, the whole pond is
lifted a few inches due to recent rain. Actually I am not sure if the
pond is lifted or the soil on the side collapsed. If it is lifted by
the water, I don't know if the sand I put under the liner all
collapsed to the bottom or not. I am going to wait for a few days to
see if the pond is going to come back down when the ground water goes
away. Unfortunately, we have clay soil here, and the water may not go
away for a while. Does anyone have any experience with this? What
would you suggest?

- Tak

[Nedra]

My liner pond bubbled up the first spring I had it installed... 1994. I had
to wait several
weeks for the water to finally drain away. I also had to dig a trench
around the pond
to keep the heavy spring rains from doing this again. Also built up the
sides of the
pond about 7 or 8 inches with mulch. Solved the problem.

Nedra

"Tak Sze" > wrote in message
om...
> I just recently built a 2000 gallon pond with concrete over liner. The
> pond has not been filled with water yet. However, the whole pond is
> lifted a few inches due to recent rain. Actually I am not sure if the
> pond is lifted or the soil on the side collapsed. If it is lifted by
> the water, I don't know if the sand I put under the liner all
> collapsed to the bottom or not. I am going to wait for a few days to
> see if the pond is going to come back down when the ground water goes
> away. Unfortunately, we have clay soil here, and the water may not go
> away for a while. Does anyone have any experience with this? What
> would you suggest?
>
> - Tak

[Crashj]

On or about 28 Oct 2004 15:16:06 -0700, (Tak Sze)
wrote something like:

>I just recently built a 2000 gallon pond with concrete over liner. The
>pond has not been filled with water yet.

That's not a pond, that's a boat. ;-(
Hence the lift. You could have a serious structural problem as the
pond settles back into place. It will not be fully supported. I would
imagine there are gaps and pockets all around the basin under ground
level. When you do fill it there will probably be cracks at the very
least. The only way to avoid that, I think is to fill the pond now and
hope it settles into place before the water in the ground drains away.
--
Crashj
--
Crashj

Have you thought of moving house?

Fireball


"Crashj" > wrote in message
...
> On or about 28 Oct 2004 15:16:06 -0700, (Tak Sze)
> wrote something like:
>
>>I just recently built a 2000 gallon pond with concrete over liner. The
>>pond has not been filled with water yet.
>
> That's not a pond, that's a boat. ;-(
> Hence the lift. You could have a serious structural problem as the
> pond settles back into place. It will not be fully supported. I would
> imagine there are gaps and pockets all around the basin under ground
> level. When you do fill it there will probably be cracks at the very
> least. The only way to avoid that, I think is to fill the pond now and
> hope it settles into place before the water in the ground drains away.
> --
> Crashj
> --
> Crashj

[Crashj]

On or about Fri, 29 Oct 2004 20:04:02 +0100,
> wrote something like:

>Have you thought of moving house?
>
>Fireball
>
>
>"Crashj" > wrote in message
...
>> On or about 28 Oct 2004 15:16:06 -0700, (Tak Sze)
>> wrote something like:
>>
>>>I just recently built a 2000 gallon pond with concrete over liner. The
>>>pond has not been filled with water yet.
>>
>> That's not a pond, that's a boat. ;-(

Why would I, Crashj, want to move my house?

--
A: Because it is the opposite of how a conversation is scripted.
Q: Why is top posting so annoying?
A: Top posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?
--
Crashj

[yobdab]

Crashj > wrote in message >...
> On or about 28 Oct 2004 15:16:06 -0700, (Tak Sze)
> wrote something like:
>
> >I just recently built a 2000 gallon pond with concrete over liner. The
> >pond has not been filled with water yet.
>
> That's not a pond, that's a boat. ;-(
> Hence the lift. You could have a serious structural problem as the
> pond settles back into place. It will not be fully supported. I would
> imagine there are gaps and pockets all around the basin under ground
> level. When you do fill it there will probably be cracks at the very
> least. The only way to avoid that, I think is to fill the pond now and
> hope it settles into place before the water in the ground drains away.
> --
> Crashj

Better fill it with water now; same thing happens with pools. When
they are empty and the water table goes up (rain) causes the lift.

[bk]

"yobdab" > wrote in message
>
> Better fill it with water now; same thing happens with pools. When
> they are empty and the water table goes up (rain) causes the lift.

I agree. Water is heavy. I hope the load is faily distributed across the
pond.
Best of luck.

[Derek Broughton]

Crashj wrote:

Oh, come on, now...

> A: Because it is the opposite of how a conversation is scripted.
> Q: Why is top posting so annoying?
> A: Top posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?

there are worse things than topposting. (Funny, though)
--
derek

[Crashj]

On or about Mon, 01 Nov 2004 10:12:23 -0400, Derek Broughton
> wrote something like:

>Crashj wrote:
>
>Oh, come on, now...
>
>> A: Because it is the opposite of how a conversation is scripted.
>> Q: Why is top posting so annoying?
>> A: Top posting.
>> Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?
>
>there are worse things than topposting. (Funny, though)

Tell me about it. Ever hear of Ed Conrad? ;-)
--
Crashj

[Stephen M. Henning]

Crashj wrote:

> A: Because it is the opposite of how a conversation is scripted.
> Q: Why is top posting so annoying?

> A: Top posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?

There is only one thing worse than top posting; that is not editing the
quoted material left before bottom posting. Usually a person is
responding to a single or couple points and only those points need be
left and then they can be carefully edited.

If the response does not appear in the window without scrolling, then
hit delete. Simple.

[Derek Broughton]

Crashj wrote:

> On or about Mon, 01 Nov 2004 10:12:23 -0400, Derek Broughton
> > wrote something like:
>
>>
>>there are worse things than topposting. (Funny, though)
>
> Tell me about it. Ever hear of Ed Conrad? ;-)

LOL. I hadn't, but Google had. Now I wish I still hadn't. How do you use
the word "pseudoscience" as a _positive_ self-descriptive term?
--
derek

[Nedra]

The irritating thing about NOT top posting is that this is supposed to be a
conversation. I know of no one in a conversation who repeats the people
who've just spoken ... that is idiotic.... to me at least.
I hit delete if the person has not had presence of mind
to edit the previous speakers..... even then Bottom Posting is an irritant -
I don't give a hoot what usenet says.

Nedrda in Missouri

"Stephen M. Henning" > wrote in message
...
> Crashj wrote:
>
> > A: Because it is the opposite of how a conversation is scripted.
> > Q: Why is top posting so annoying?
>
> > A: Top posting.
> > Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?
>
> There is only one thing worse than top posting; that is not editing the
> quoted material left before bottom posting. Usually a person is
> responding to a single or couple points and only those points need be
> left and then they can be carefully edited.
>
> If the response does not appear in the window without scrolling, then
> hit delete. Simple.

[Derek Broughton]

Nedra wrote:

> The irritating thing about NOT top posting is that this is supposed to be
> a
> conversation. I know of no one in a conversation who repeats the people
> who've just spoken ... that is idiotic.... to me at least.

That's why there's quoting in every news reader. In a real conversation,
you have immediate feedback. In an news/mail conversation you have to
supply a _hint_ as to what you're responding to. Top posters can only do
that by including the whole message.

> I hit delete if the person has not had presence of mind
> to edit the previous speakers..... even then Bottom Posting is an irritant
> - I don't give a hoot what usenet says.

Sorry, Nedra, but that indicates that you don't give a hoot about your
readers, either. Some mysterious "Usenet" didn't come up with a set of
rules about posting. It's a consensus among users. Like any consensus, it
only works when people are prepared to put a little effort into it. It's
not, either, Top-posting vs. Bottom posting, as top-posters usually put it.
It's top-posting vs intelligent conversational editing. Leave enough of
the previous message for context and respond to individual points, and
readers will be much happier.
--
derek

[Mark Bannister]

Nedra wrote:
> The irritating thing about NOT top posting is that this is supposed to be a
> conversation. I know of no one in a conversation who repeats the people
> who've just spoken ... that is idiotic.... to me at least.
> I hit delete if the person has not had presence of mind
> to edit the previous speakers..... even then Bottom Posting is an irritant -
> I don't give a hoot what usenet says.
>

More and more groups I have noticed seem to be using top posting. I try
to adhere to the group's desires, but find top posting much easier to
deal with and in-line ("inline", "in line" ?) posting for when it makes
sense. Top posting is faster to read if you follow a group consistently.
Bottom posting works better for the occasional user, but I have found
it easy enough to read from bottom to top. I don't know about
newsgroups but 99% of my email replies back and forth are top posted and
I do a lot of work by email with a broad range of companies.

Some folks are quite touchy about it of course.

[rtk]

If I don't see the message without scrolling, I skip it. Sometimes it's
appropriate to top, sometimes bottom, occasionally in the middle. There
are enough rules in the world without adding them at random.

rtk


Nedra wrote:
> The irritating thing about NOT top posting is that this is supposed to be a
> conversation. I know of no one in a conversation who repeats the people
> who've just spoken ... that is idiotic.... to me at least.
> I hit delete if the person has not had presence of mind
> to edit the previous speakers..... even then Bottom Posting is an irritant -
> I don't give a hoot what usenet says.
>
> Nedrda in Missouri
>
> "Stephen M. Henning" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Crashj wrote:
>>
>>
>>>A: Because it is the opposite of how a conversation is scripted.
>>>Q: Why is top posting so annoying?
>>
>>>A: Top posting.
>>>Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?
>>
>>There is only one thing worse than top posting; that is not editing the
>>quoted material left before bottom posting. Usually a person is
>>responding to a single or couple points and only those points need be
>>left and then they can be carefully edited.
>>
>>If the response does not appear in the window without scrolling, then
>>hit delete. Simple.
>
>

[Derek Broughton]

Mark Bannister wrote:

> More and more groups I have noticed seem to be using top posting. I try

More and more groups have members with people who couldn't care less, and
simply use whatever form their news reader provides as a default.

> to adhere to the group's desires, but find top posting much easier to
> deal with and in-line ("inline", "in line" ?) posting for when it makes
> sense. Top posting is faster to read if you follow a group consistently.

I beg to differ. I read extremely well, but I read a huge amount of online
postings (typically 100 emails per day - after filtering spam - and 1-200
news postings). You can't keep all those threads straight with
top-posting. fwiw, I would have said "inline" but my spell-check dislikes
it. Definitely "in-line" rather than "in line".

> Bottom posting works better for the occasional user, but I have found

Bottom posting is _never_ right, except in the trivial case where it's
indistinguishable from in-line posting.

> newsgroups but 99% of my email replies back and forth are top posted and
> I do a lot of work by email with a broad range of companies.

99% of my email correspondence (as opposed to mailing lists) is also
top-posted. Partly, that's different because we really _are_ having a
conversation - business email (unfortunately) holds my attention more than
a rec.ponds thread - and I _never_ edit business correspondence anyway. We
keep the last message in a thread as the entire history of the
correspondence. Partly it's because my business correspondence is
generally conducted via MS Outlook which has _no_ usable facility for
in-line posting. It frequently irritates me that I can't easily respond to
a question point-by-point.

> Some folks are quite touchy about it of course.

Oh, yeah?? Says who? :-)
--
derek

[Nedra]

Now, now Derek. Don't go putting words in my mouth or thoughts there that
have
no business being there. Wow! You are certainly in a judgemental mood this
morning.

My way of keeping up with the conversation is via
the Subject of the post. And then there is a glimmer of what the
person said attached to my answer.

But then I do have an extraordinary memory ;^)

Nedra

"Derek Broughton" > wrote in message
...
> Nedra wrote:
>
> > The irritating thing about NOT top posting is that this is supposed to
be
> > a
> > conversation. I know of no one in a conversation who repeats the people
> > who've just spoken ... that is idiotic.... to me at least.
>
> That's why there's quoting in every news reader. In a real conversation,
> you have immediate feedback. In an news/mail conversation you have to
> supply a _hint_ as to what you're responding to. Top posters can only do
> that by including the whole message.
>
> > I hit delete if the person has not had presence of mind
> > to edit the previous speakers..... even then Bottom Posting is an
irritant
> > - I don't give a hoot what usenet says.
>
> Sorry, Nedra, but that indicates that you don't give a hoot about your
> readers, either. Some mysterious "Usenet" didn't come up with a set of
> rules about posting. It's a consensus among users. Like any consensus, it
> only works when people are prepared to put a little effort into it. It's
> not, either, Top-posting vs. Bottom posting, as top-posters usually put
it.
> It's top-posting vs intelligent conversational editing. Leave enough of
> the previous message for context and respond to individual points, and
> readers will be much happier.
> --
> derek

[Stephen M. Henning]

The majority of Usenet-users prefer bottom-posting. In addition to
bottom-posting, it is customary to leave out non-relevant parts of the
message with regard to the reply, and to put the reply directly beneath
the quoted relevant parts. If you want to know more about writing new
posts. Check out this site:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/documents/quotingguide.html

Bottom-posting is proper Usenet Etiquette. Check out the following URL:

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html

[Derek Broughton]

Nedra wrote:

> Now, now Derek. Don't go putting words in my mouth or thoughts there that
> have
> no business being there. Wow! You are certainly in a judgemental mood this
> morning.

I'm really not - and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth either. You
did say "I don't give a hoot what usenet says", and I'm saying you _should_
give a hoot, because it isn't some rule that is created by somebody who has
only his own interests in mind, it's a _guideline_ created by usenet users
as a whole (admittedly, some time ago, when we were all geeks) to try to
reduce problems.

Ignoring netiquette, for whatever reason, is done not only at your own
peril, but to the detriment of all usenetters.
--
derek

[Derek Broughton]

Stephen M. Henning wrote:

> The majority of Usenet-users prefer bottom-posting. In addition to

afaik, the majority of Usenet users prefer to read _inline_ posting.
Unfortunately, many of them aren't interested in taking the time, either.

> Bottom-posting is proper Usenet Etiquette. Check out the following URL:
>
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html

rfc1855 says _nothing_ about bottom posting. The word "bottom" doesn't even
appear. Of course, the RFC itself says nothing directly about top posting
either, though it does say "be sure you summarize the original at the top
of the message, or include just enough text of the original to give a
context".

The biggest problem with top-, inline- or bottom- posting or is the people
who insist on changing the style in the middle of a thread.
--
derek

Why don't you both move this trivial ping pong 'conversation' to a newsgroup
on the topic of news groups? You case then chase your own tails to your
hearts content and talk about nothing all day. To read 200 posts you must
either have a huge range of hobbies or be a professional news group reader.
Do either of you actually have a pond? - Don't answer that, we don't want
to know, we are all bored to death.

Stick to ponds, fish, building ponds, etc, not the damn style.

And as for some of the threads I have seen here about damn elections, rape,
and I don't know what!!!! Give us break!

Fireball.


"Derek Broughton" > wrote in message
...
> Stephen M. Henning wrote:
>
>> The majority of Usenet-users prefer bottom-posting. In addition to
>
> afaik, the majority of Usenet users prefer to read _inline_ posting.
> Unfortunately, many of them aren't interested in taking the time, either.
>
>> Bottom-posting is proper Usenet Etiquette. Check out the following URL:
>>
>> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
>
> rfc1855 says _nothing_ about bottom posting. The word "bottom" doesn't
> even
> appear. Of course, the RFC itself says nothing directly about top posting
> either, though it does say "be sure you summarize the original at the top
> of the message, or include just enough text of the original to give a
> context".
>
> The biggest problem with top-, inline- or bottom- posting or is the people
> who insist on changing the style in the middle of a thread.
> --
> derek

[Marizel]

I agree--top posting makes it much easier to see the new stuff right
off if you're following the thread. Plus it helps keep the
attributions straight as people reply. In bottom posting, it becomes
increasingly difficult to decipher who said what. Just make sure you
don't have an automatic sig added to the bottom of the whole post.

Example:
Re: Top posting
~~~~~~~~
I agree.
-- poster3

On Oct 31 poster2 said:
> yada yada
> -- poster2

>On Oct 30 poster1 said:
>>blah blah
>> -- poster1
~~~~~~~~

Example:
Re: Bottom posting
~~~~~~~~
On Oct 31 poster2 said:

>On Oct 30 poster1 said:
>>blah blah
>> -- poster1

>yada yada
> -- poster2

I agree.
-- poster3
~~~~~~~~

Mary


On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 16:13:54 GMT, "Nedra" >
wrote:

>The irritating thing about NOT top posting is that this is supposed to be a
>conversation. I know of no one in a conversation who repeats the people
>who've just spoken ... that is idiotic.... to me at least.
> I hit delete if the person has not had presence of mind
>to edit the previous speakers..... even then Bottom Posting is an irritant -
>I don't give a hoot what usenet says.
>
>Nedrda in Missouri
>

[Nedra]

Yeaaaaa for Fireball!!! There I voted.

Nedra

> wrote in message news:418696a2$1@padme....
> Why don't you both move this trivial ping pong 'conversation' to a
newsgroup
> on the topic of news groups? You case then chase your own tails to your
> hearts content and talk about nothing all day. To read 200 posts you must
> either have a huge range of hobbies or be a professional news group
reader.
> Do either of you actually have a pond? - Don't answer that, we don't want
> to know, we are all bored to death.
>
> Stick to ponds, fish, building ponds, etc, not the damn style.
>
> And as for some of the threads I have seen here about damn elections,
rape,
> and I don't know what!!!! Give us break!
>
> Fireball.
>
>
> "Derek Broughton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Stephen M. Henning wrote:
> >
> >> The majority of Usenet-users prefer bottom-posting. In addition to
> >
> > afaik, the majority of Usenet users prefer to read _inline_ posting.
> > Unfortunately, many of them aren't interested in taking the time,
either.
> >
> >> Bottom-posting is proper Usenet Etiquette. Check out the following URL:
> >>
> >> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
> >
> > rfc1855 says _nothing_ about bottom posting. The word "bottom" doesn't
> > even
> > appear. Of course, the RFC itself says nothing directly about top
posting
> > either, though it does say "be sure you summarize the original at the
top
> > of the message, or include just enough text of the original to give a
> > context".
> >
> > The biggest problem with top-, inline- or bottom- posting or is the
people
> > who insist on changing the style in the middle of a thread.
> > --
> > derek
>
>

[Crashj]

On or about Mon, 01 Nov 2004 10:26:58 -0600, Mark Bannister
> wrote something like:

>
>
>Nedra wrote:
>> The irritating thing about NOT top posting is that this is supposed to be a
>> conversation.
<>
>More and more groups I have noticed seem to be using top posting.

It's alway September on the internet . . .

http://www.albion.com/netiquette/



--
Crashj

[Crashj]

On or about Mon, 01 Nov 2004 22:38:59 GMT,
(Marizel) wrote something like:

<>
> Just make sure you
>don't have an automatic sig added to the bottom of the whole post.
<>
A good newsreader will trim a properly formatted sig line. Few here
know how to do that, apparently.
--
Crashj

[Crashj]

On or about Mon, 1 Nov 2004 19:58:39 -0000,
> wrote something like:

>Why don't you both move this trivial ping pong 'conversation' to a newsgroup
>on the topic of news groups?
<>
Because it is an issue within this group. Usenet has long ago resolved
the issue. As new people come on board the problem crops up.

Language is not trivial. We are talking about the language and format
we use in RP. This convention gets worked out in most usenet groups
after a while. Topposting marks you as a newbie or worse in most of
the rest of usenet.

OTOH, occasional errors are not a reason to flame anyone. If a group
has not resolved the issue, you just go with the flow. I put up with
it here because there is good information from the regulars and old
hats.

Few threads in this group go past a dozen or so posts, so conversation
confusion is not usually a problem here. If you should wander off to
some other groups you may find yourself the subject of endless torment
and plonking. Your top posts will be unreadable to regular users and
you will find yourself excluded.

We are nicer here. Well, I try to be, since I am still using Free
Agent. For now.
--
Crashj

[Crashj]

On or about Tue, 02 Nov 2004 00:12:53 GMT, "Nedra"
> wrote something like:

>Yeaaaaa for Fireball!!! There I voted.
>
>Nedra

<>
I can certainly understand your reaction and I am fine with you all
top posting short conversations, but why won't you trim your posts?
--
Crashj

[Stephen M. Henning]

Derek Broughton > wrote:

> rfc1855 says _nothing_ about bottom posting. The word "bottom" doesn't even
> appear. Of course, the RFC itself says nothing directly about top posting
> either, though it does say "be sure you summarize the original at the top
> of the message, or include just enough text of the original to give a
> context".

"be sure you summarize the original at the top of the message" is the
essence of bottom posting.

[Stephen M. Henning]

> wrote:

> Why don't you both move this trivial ping pong 'conversation' to a newsgroup
> on the topic of news groups?

Because we were trying to share a little net etiquette with people on
this forum like you that top post.

[Derek Broughton]

Crashj wrote:

> On or about Mon, 01 Nov 2004 22:38:59 GMT,
> (Marizel) wrote something like:
>
> <>
>> Just make sure you
>>don't have an automatic sig added to the bottom of the whole post.
> <>
> A good newsreader will trim a properly formatted sig line. Few here
> know how to do that, apparently.

Mine does. Of course, it doesn't top-post without difficulty, either...
--
derek

None of you get it do you??

TALK FISH. or talk somewhere else. Transfer your inane ping pong to
alt.geek. I just looked to see if it really exists and it does. You will
frighten people away with you incessant moaning. Get a life. Nobody
interested in various answers to fishy questions will care where people
reply, and I think photos help and should be included in the post where it
helps - by all means compress the pix as I did to make them small - that
will help.

Go away and grow up.

Fireball





"Stephen M. Henning" > wrote in message
...
> Derek Broughton > wrote:
>
>> rfc1855 says _nothing_ about bottom posting. The word "bottom" doesn't
>> even
>> appear. Of course, the RFC itself says nothing directly about top
>> posting
>> either, though it does say "be sure you summarize the original at the top
>> of the message, or include just enough text of the original to give a
>> context".
>
> "be sure you summarize the original at the top of the message" is the
> essence of bottom posting.

[Ann in Houston]

"Crashj" > wrote in message
...
> On or about Tue, 02 Nov 2004 00:12:53 GMT, "Nedra"
> > wrote something like:
>
> >Yeaaaaa for Fireball!!! There I voted.
> >
> >Nedra
>
> <>
> I can certainly understand your reaction and I am fine with you all
> top posting short conversations, but why won't you trim your posts?
> --
> Crashj

I don't know why, but Fireball's message never showed up on OE, which I use.
I only saw Nedra's quote. Still, I have to ask, if Fireball has to ask
whether Nedra or several others in the discussion even has a pond, he hasn't
shown any interest in actually reading the group. (There - I bottom posted.
But I still like the conversational, email-toned flow of top-posting. It
eliminates the need to snip, since many people are too stubborn about it. I
don't see that top posting is any worse.

[Ann in Houston]

"Stephen M. Henning" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote:
>
> > Why don't you both move this trivial ping pong 'conversation' to a
newsgroup
> > on the topic of news groups?
>
> Because we were trying to share a little net etiquette with people on
> this forum like you that top post.

Why is top posting worse than egregious spelling? I don't mean the
obvious, occasional typo. I mean using the wrong forms of words, or a
complete lack of quick proofreading. Let anyone mention it, and you would
think they had insulted the poster's ethnicity. Top posting, on the other
hand, is scorned beyond all reason, in my book. I don't see the difference.
Regular etiquette has some outdated rules that have gone by the wayside as
no longer relevant or appreciated. Why can't some of the original
netiquette rules go the same way? Are there some newsreaders out there that
really make top-posting hard to follow?
As for not mentioning spelling mistakes, once someone here referred to a
goldfish "bowel". A couple of well worded, gentle jokes were made and most
people had a good laugh, including the OP. Even after the OP chimed in with
his or her contribution to the humor of it, there were people who posted
with severe indignation at someone's spelling being commented upon. Even
when the original poster responded to that, to say they thought it was
funny, there were those who weren't satisfied.
It all seems the same to me.

[Derek Broughton]

Ann in Houston wrote:

> Why is top posting worse than egregious spelling? I don't mean the
> obvious, occasional typo. I mean using the wrong forms of words, or a
> complete lack of quick proofreading. Let anyone mention it, and you would
> think they had insulted the poster's ethnicity.

It's not worse. But flaming spelling is unfair when you don't know if the
other party really is an ignorant unschooled lout. Anybody should be able
to figure out how to post in a sequentially meaningful manner.

> Are there some newsreaders out there
> that really make top-posting hard to follow?

All of them. It's just fine to top-post _once_, but when everybody is
posting on top of a sequence of top-posters, it's time for the bit bucket.

[I swore I'd had enough of this thread...]
--
derek

[Stephen M. Henning]

"Ann in Houston" > wrote:

> Why is top posting worse than egregious spelling?

Net etiquette discourages top posting because it makes reading in
context much more difficult.

Correct net etiquette is to overlook spelling mistakes, in fact it
encourages spelling shortcuts, IMHO. Perfect spelling is not necessary
in news groups since most postings are conversational in nature and it
is more important to share ideas then to share correct spelling. I must
admit that I stop reading some posting since the misspellings make
reading a chore, and that is not what I am here for. I try to read what
I write before posting and usually run spell checker.

By the way, net etiquette dates back to the ARPANET days (the '70s and
'80s), well before the internet as we know it. Most of the people on
ARPANET were well educated but not English majors by any stretch of the
imagination. To many, English was a second language or third language.

[Stephen M. Henning]

> wrote:

> None of you get it do you??

You don't get it. You top posted.

If you are not interested in net etiquette in rec.ponds, then don't
follow this thread. Simple.

Manners are a part of life and manners in this group are a part of this
group. Unfortunately some people have been using poor manners in this
group. They should be set on the bottom of the pool until spring ;)

[RainLover]

On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 19:01:40 -0000, >
wrote:

>None of you get it do you??
>
>TALK FISH. or talk somewhere else. Transfer your inane ping pong to
>alt.geek. I just looked to see if it really exists and it does. You will
>frighten people away with you incessant moaning. Get a life. Nobody
>interested in various answers to fishy questions will care where people
>reply, and I think photos help and should be included in the post where it
>helps - by all means compress the pix as I did to make them small - that
>will help.
>
>Go away and grow up.
>
>Fireball
>
>
>
>
>
>"Stephen M. Henning" > wrote in message
...
>> Derek Broughton > wrote:
>>
>>> rfc1855 says _nothing_ about bottom posting. The word "bottom" doesn't
>>> even
>>> appear. Of course, the RFC itself says nothing directly about top
>>> posting
>>> either, though it does say "be sure you summarize the original at the top
>>> of the message, or include just enough text of the original to give a
>>> context".
>>
>> "be sure you summarize the original at the top of the message" is the
>> essence of bottom posting.
>

This is to Fireball. LOOK WHOSE MOANING?

There are MANY reasons for not top posting. First and foremost, if
someone joins a conversation late, they may need to re-read all of the
previous postings to catch up. By posting on top, it makes that
impossible to do by the time there are 4 or 5 messages in a thread.

Pointing out in a thread titled "top posting" a message about top
posting is perfectly fine. If you only want to read about "fishies"
just read those threads.

Your moaning and whining and telling others to grow up says more about
YOU than it does convince others not to point out netiquette
(netiquette means etiquette for how to post on the internet and
newsgroups).

James, Seattle

[RainLover]

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 20:04:48 GMT, "Ann in Houston"
> wrote:

>Are there some newsreaders out there that
>really make top-posting hard to follow?

Some basic standards are needed. We all write left to right and use
punctuation for instance. When people bottom post, someone can join a
conversation with 6 or 7 previous posts and read through ONE post, top
to bottom, and read the entire conversation.

If you want to respond to specific points within a post, the only way
to do that is by quoting, and then replying after each specific
point... what happens when you have top and bottom posts in the same
thread? It becomes IMPOSSIBLE to follow...

Even in THIS post, some reading it and missing your previous post can
read what YOU said, and then my response, to do it the OTHER WAY would
either mean the person wouldn't have a clue as to what I was
responding to OR skip to the bottom, read your post, and then back up
to read my reply.


you might as well write from right to left.

James, Seattle

[[email protected]]

In >, on 11/01/04
at 01:07 PM, "Stephen M. Henning" > said:

>The majority of Usenet-users prefer bottom-posting. In addition to
>bottom-posting, it is customary to leave out non-relevant parts of the
>message with regard to the reply, and to put the reply directly beneath
>the quoted relevant parts. If you want to know more about writing new
>posts. Check out this site:

>http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/documents/quotingguide.html

>Bottom-posting is proper Usenet Etiquette. Check out the following URL:

>http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html

It was that way in Fidonet, before Usenet went mainstream.


Alan

--

---------------------------------------------------------------------
** Please use address alanh77[at]comccast.net to reply via e-mail. **

Posted using registered MR/2 ICE Newsreader #564 and eComStation 1.1

BBS - The Nerve Center Telnet FidoNet 261/1000 tncbbs.no-ip.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------

[Larry]

>
>>Bottom-posting is proper Usenet Etiquette. Check out the following URL:
>
>>http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
>
>It was that way in Fidonet, before Usenet went mainstream.
>
>

We've had this discussion in alt. food wine already. Bottom posting
is the norm. In rec. birds most bottom but not all (;-{

All the best,

Larry
Southern Ontario

[Lt. Kizhe Catson]

Derek Broughton > wrote in message >...
> Crashj wrote:
>
> > On or about Mon, 01 Nov 2004 10:12:23 -0400, Derek Broughton
> > > wrote something like:
> >
> >>
> >>there are worse things than topposting. (Funny, though)
> >
> > Tell me about it. Ever hear of Ed Conrad? ;-)
>
> LOL. I hadn't, but Google had. Now I wish I still hadn't. How do you use
> the word "pseudoscience" as a _positive_ self-descriptive term?

You lucky innocent. I've been alternately reading or avoiding reading
Ed on talk.origins for over 10 years now. He's one of these life-long
crackpots for whom the invention and popularization of the internet
was a God-send: finally, they could annoy (or entertain) people all
over the world with their obsession, instead of just their immediate
family, neighbours, and the letters editor of the local paper.
Recently, he's been invited to some big conference of pseudo-science
where he'll get to rub shoulders with world-class charlatans like Erik
Von Daniken.

-- Kizhe (dupe and lackey of the Scientific Establishment)

[Derek Broughton]

Lt. Kizhe Catson wrote:

> where he'll get to rub shoulders with world-class charlatans like Erik
> Von Daniken.

Take that back! How can you possibly call Von Daniken a charlatan?

I'm shocked, I say, shocked!!!!! (I almost forgot to include enough
exclamations!!!!!!).
--
derek

[Crashj]

On or about Wed, 03 Nov 2004 13:54:33 -0400, Derek Broughton
> wrote something like:

>Lt. Kizhe Catson wrote:
>
>> where he'll get to rub shoulders with world-class charlatans like Erik
>> Von Daniken.
>
>Take that back! How can you possibly call Von Daniken a charlatan?
>
>I'm shocked, I say, shocked!!!!! (I almost forgot to include enough
>exclamations!!!!!!).

You forgot "appalled"
--
Crashj

[Crashj]

On or about Tue, 2 Nov 2004 19:01:40 -0000,
> wrote something like:

>None of you get it do you??
>
>TALK FISH. or talk somewhere else.
<>
>Fireball

Who's the newbie?
--
Crashj

[Nedra]

You are asking me why I don't trim the extraneous junk on my post.... ??
Your supposed to go on to the next post, silly. Not read to the end -
Sheeeez

Nedra

"Crashj" > wrote in message
...
> On or about Tue, 02 Nov 2004 00:12:53 GMT, "Nedra"
> > wrote something like:
>
> >Yeaaaaa for Fireball!!! There I voted.
> >
> >Nedra
>
> <>
> I can certainly understand your reaction and I am fine with you all
> top posting short conversations, but why won't you trim your posts?
> --
> Crashj

[Rodney Pont]

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 19:53:53 GMT, Ann in Houston wrote:

>It
>eliminates the need to snip, since many people are too stubborn about it. I
>don't see that top posting is any worse.

I like people who snip, it means I don't have to pay to download what
I've already read. Having said that my memory is appalling so I like to
see enough to put the reply into context.

--
Regards - Rodney Pont
The from address exists but is mostly dumped,
please send any emails to the address below
e-mail ngpsm4 (at) infohitsystems (dot) ltd (dot) uk

[Derek Broughton]

Ann in Houston wrote:

> I don't know why, but Fireball's message never showed up on OE, which I
> use.

They don't show up here, either. No loss.

> I only saw Nedra's quote. Still, I have to ask, if Fireball has to ask
> whether Nedra or several others in the discussion even has a pond, he
> hasn't shown any interest in actually reading the group. (There - I bottom
> posted.

Thank you :-)

> But I still like the conversational, email-toned flow of top-posting. It
> eliminates the need to snip, since many people are too stubborn about it.
> I don't see that top posting is any worse.

The problem is, it _doesn't_ eliminate the need to snip. For those of us in
North America, the actual amount of data coming down the newsgroup feed is
likely unimportant (though there's still a lot of people on slow phone
lines), but readers in Europe still mostly pay by the minute for connect
time. They don't want to download any more data than they have to. For
heaven's sake, even if you must top-post, snip!
--
derek

[zookeeper]

> wrote in message news:4187db05$1@padme....
> None of you get it do you??
> TALK FISH. or talk somewhere else. Transfer your inane ping pong to
> alt.geek ... and I think photos help and should be included in the post
where it
> helps - by all means compress the pix as I did to make them small - that
> will help ... Fireball

NO PHOTOS!! Yes, I'm shouting because you don't seem to "get it." I'm lucky
because my ISP automatically rejects photos, drawings, pictures, binaries,
whatever else you want to call them, in text-only newsgroups. Look at the
size of a post with a picture and the size of a post without -- many Usenet
users still use dial-up connections, and while most do not now pay by the
minute, it's more than annoying to have a post w/ binaries download for an
hour or so when it could have been posted in a binary group where it
belongs. For garden or pond pix use alt.binaries.pictures.garden; for fish
pix use alt.binaries.aquaria; for fractals use alt.binaries.fractal-art;
etc., then post a message here with a link to the binary newsgroup message.
DON'T POST BINARIES (aka pictures, photos) ON TEXT-ONLY NEWSGROUPS --
compressed or not, they're not appropriate here. Thank you.
--
Zk

[Ann in Houston]

> > TALK FISH. or talk somewhere else. Transfer your inane ping pong to
> > alt.geek ... and I think photos help and should be included in the post
> where it
> > helps - by all means compress the pix as I did to make them small - that
> > will help ... Fireball
>


etc., then post a message here with a link to the binary newsgroup message.
> DON'T POST BINARIES (aka pictures, photos) ON TEXT-ONLY NEWSGROUPS --
> compressed or not, they're not appropriate here. Thank you.
> --
> Zk
>
>

I made the mistake of posting a pic many years ago when I was very new here.
I didn't know about pay as you go internet. I was sorry not to be able to
do so, though, because it was a nice amenity. Sometimes, though, my reader
couldn't process them and I felt left out not to be able to see the
pictures. For Fireball, you ought to try gardenweb.com and their forums.
They have galleries and no one minds if you post pictures because its web
based. Their aquatic garden forum is a lot like rec.ponds. You have to
register, but it's free, and it has a lot of info on all other kinds of
gardens. Read the list of forums.

[Ann in Houston]

"RainLover" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 20:04:48 GMT, "Ann in Houston"
> > wrote:
>
> >Are there some newsreaders out there that
> >really make top-posting hard to follow?
>
> Some basic standards are needed.

> If you want to respond to specific points within a post, the only way
> to do that is by quoting, and then replying after each specific
> point... what happens when you have top and bottom posts in the same
> thread? It becomes IMPOSSIBLE to follow...

I have done the in-line posting when a post was really detailed and it was
warranted to carry on the conversation. I have also read top-posted
messages and had to scroll down to see what came before. But it was an
unusual circumstance. I usually could tell what was going on without it.
Also, I was reduced to reading my groups in archives like the old Deja and
now Google. That format made it pretty moot as far as which was easiest to
follow. It was done in an orderly way that lined out the conversation
pretty well. I just didn't like the delay and the fact that some posts
never made it on. I'm evidently experiencing some of that here, but not as
much. I guess it's just contrary to my nature. When I hit "reply" and the
screen comes up, I don't automatically scroll to the end. I have a thought
on my mind and I have to type it in to be able to remember what I wanted to
say. My efforts to bottom post here have usually involved typing the
message and then cutting and pasting it to the bottom.

[Crashj]

On or about Thu, 4 Nov 2004 10:07:09 -0800, "zookeeper"
> wrote something like:

> wrote in message news:4187db05$1@padme....
>> None of you get it do you??
>> TALK FISH. or talk somewhere else. Transfer your inane ping pong to
>> alt.geek ... and I think photos help and should be included in the post
>where it
>> helps - by all means compress the pix as I did to make them small - that
>> will help ... Fireball
>
>NO PHOTOS!! Yes, I'm shouting because you don't seem to "get it."

Fireball is what is known, technically, as a ****wit. It is a
legitimate Australian term for an unteachable ignorant person. Into
the kill file with him.
--
Crashj

[TSP]

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 18:58:08 -0500, wrote:

>===<>In >, on 11/01/04
I
>===<> at 01:07 PM, "Stephen M. Henning" > said:
post
>===<>
where
>===<>>The majority of Usenet-users prefer bottom-posting. In addition to
I
>===<>>bottom-posting, it is customary to leave out non-relevant parts of the
feel
>===<>>message with regard to the reply, and to put the reply directly beneath
like
>===<>>the quoted relevant parts. If you want to know more about writing new
posting
>===<>>posts. Check out this site:
if
>===<>
I reply
>===<>>http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/documents/quotingguide.html
and
>===<>
snip>===<>>Bottom-posting is proper Usenet Etiquette. Check out the
following URL:
is
>===<>
never
>===<>>http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
done>===<>
>===<>It was that way in Fidonet, before Usenet went mainstream.
as
>===<>
I
>===<>
am
>===<>Alan
not
allowed

to
have
sharp objects

[Crashj]

On or about Thu, 04 Nov 2004 02:34:52 GMT, "Nedra"
> wrote something like:

>You are asking me why I don't trim the extraneous junk on my post.... ??
>Your supposed to go on to the next post, silly. Not read to the end -
>Sheeeez
<>
Hon, you are still not getting it. Our British and European readers
pay by the word.
--
Crashj

[Crashj]

On or about Fri, 05 Nov 2004 02:08:13 GMT, (TSP) wrote
something like:

>On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 18:58:08 -0500, wrote:
>
>>===<>In >, on 11/01/04
>I
>>===<> at 01:07 PM, "Stephen M. Henning" > said:
>post
>>===<>
>where
>>===<>>The majority of Usenet-users prefer bottom-posting. In addition to
>I
>>===<>>bottom-posting, it is customary to leave out non-relevant parts of the
>feel
>>===<>>message with regard to the reply, and to put the reply directly beneath
>like
>>===<>>the quoted relevant parts. If you want to know more about writing new
>posting
>>===<>>posts. Check out this site:
>if
>>===<>
>I reply
>>===<>>http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/documents/quotingguide.html
>and
>>===<>
>snip>===<
>>Bottom-posting is proper Usenet Etiquette. Check out the
>>following URL:
>is
>>===<>
>never
>>===<>>http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
>done
>===<>
>>===<>It was that way in Fidonet, before Usenet went mainstream.
>as
>>===<>
>I
>>===<>
>am
>>===<>Alan
>not
>allowed
>
>to
>have
>sharp objects

I am sending this to ahbou so everyone can see your pain.
--
Crashj

[Ann in Houston]

>
> >You are asking me why I don't trim the extraneous junk on my post.... ??
> >Your supposed to go on to the next post, silly. Not read to the end -
> >Sheeeez
> <>
> Hon, you are still not getting it. Our British and European readers
> pay by the word.
> --
> Crashj

Well, then, it seems to me that this should have been the topic of the whole
thread. We should push for snipping, rather than for where people put their
message.

[~ jan JJsPond.us]

>The problem is, it _doesn't_ eliminate the need to snip. For those of us in
>North America, the actual amount of data coming down the newsgroup feed is
>likely unimportant (though there's still a lot of people on slow phone
>lines), but readers in Europe still mostly pay by the minute for connect
>time.
<Tongue FIRMLY in Cheek>

See, it has nothing to do with Bush, this is the real reason they don't
like Americans, our free access to downloading usenet. ;o)

Not to worry Europe, just as you got rid of your dictators, so shall you
rid yourselves of the dictators of your computer time.... Course then
again, with the current negative light upon us, perhaps you'd rather not
follow? ;o) ~ jan


~Power to the Porg, Flow On!~


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[~ jan JJsPond.us]

>Ann wrote: My efforts to bottom post here have usually involved typing the
>message and then cutting and pasting it to the bottom.
>
Excellent idea, and also excellent learning opportunity here, that this
thread should have been more about snipping than placing. Ann deffinitely
gets it.

I'd like to know who the OP was who messed up and didn't start this thread
with OT for Off Topic? <tsk, tsk, tsk!> ;o) ~ jan


~Power to the Porg, Flow On!~


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

>
> The problem is, it _doesn't_ eliminate the need to snip. For those of us
> in
> North America, the actual amount of data coming down the newsgroup feed is
> likely unimportant (though there's still a lot of people on slow phone
> lines), but readers in Europe still mostly pay by the minute for connect
> time. They don't want to download any more data than they have to. For
> heaven's sake, even if you must top-post, snip!
> --
> derek

Actually that is not true. In the last few months broadband has been
introduced in many areas in the UK, and within 6 to 12 months most of the
country will be connected. BB take up is very high as it costs about $25
per month, very close to dial up flat fee. Only those who use the internet
irregularly connect per minute.

fireball

You are amazing Crashj! I think that there is more garbage and waste
vegtable matter coming out of your month than most people's veggie filter.
Come over to the UK and visit us Brits and see how it really is. Even in
the middle of the country miles from any sizeable town such as where I live,
we have broadband. My village comprizes about 1500 homes, 30 small
companies and there are about 300 BB users on our exchange.

Less of the pay by the word please!

Fireball



"Crashj" > wrote in message
...
> On or about Thu, 04 Nov 2004 02:34:52 GMT, "Nedra"
> > wrote something like:
>
>>You are asking me why I don't trim the extraneous junk on my post.... ??
>>Your supposed to go on to the next post, silly. Not read to the end -
>>Sheeeez
> <>
> Hon, you are still not getting it. Our British and European readers
> pay by the word.
> --
> Crashj

Thanks for that. It seems that us in the UK are 'spoilt' with broadband.
It seems that you guys in USA don't have it. But at 56K that I used for the
last 5 years a few 10's of K didn't take an hour to download. What
connection speed do you have?

Fireball


"zookeeper" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in message news:4187db05$1@padme....
>> None of you get it do you??
>> TALK FISH. or talk somewhere else. Transfer your inane ping pong to
>> alt.geek ... and I think photos help and should be included in the post
> where it
>> helps - by all means compress the pix as I did to make them small - that
>> will help ... Fireball
>
> NO PHOTOS!! Yes, I'm shouting because you don't seem to "get it." I'm
> lucky
> because my ISP automatically rejects photos, drawings, pictures, binaries,
> whatever else you want to call them, in text-only newsgroups. Look at the
> size of a post with a picture and the size of a post without -- many
> Usenet
> users still use dial-up connections, and while most do not now pay by the
> minute, it's more than annoying to have a post w/ binaries download for an
> hour or so when it could have been posted in a binary group where it
> belongs. For garden or pond pix use alt.binaries.pictures.garden; for fish
> pix use alt.binaries.aquaria; for fractals use alt.binaries.fractal-art;
> etc., then post a message here with a link to the binary newsgroup
> message.
> DON'T POST BINARIES (aka pictures, photos) ON TEXT-ONLY NEWSGROUPS --
> compressed or not, they're not appropriate here. Thank you.
> --
> Zk
>
>

> Fireball is what is known, technically, as a ****wit. It is a
> legitimate Australian term for an unteachable ignorant person. Into
> the kill file with him.
> --
> Crashj

Now we all know that you are a juvenile - thought so.

Fireball

[[email protected]]

next internet access is going to be piggy backed on electricity. no more separate BB
or ISDN or DSL. http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/technology/51502_nh_internet.html
BTW, in Japan BB is like 10- 15 bucks a month. and some cities in US are already
planning city wide WIFI. Ingrid

<Fireball> wrote:

>You are amazing Crashj! I think that there is more garbage and waste
>vegtable matter coming out of your month than most people's veggie filter.
>Come over to the UK and visit us Brits and see how it really is. Even in
>the middle of the country miles from any sizeable town such as where I live,
>we have broadband. My village comprizes about 1500 homes, 30 small
>companies and there are about 300 BB users on our exchange.
>
>Less of the pay by the word please!
>
>Fireball


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

[Cam]

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 21:06:00 -0000, <Fireball> wrote:

>
>> Fireball is what is known, technically, as a ****wit. It is a
>> legitimate Australian term for an unteachable ignorant person. Into
>> the kill file with him.
>> --
>> Crashj
>
>Now we all know that you are a juvenile - thought so.
>
>Fireball
>

Hey! you bottom posted, All right Fireball! Yay!!

[Crashj]

On or about Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:01:11 GMT, wrote
something like:

>next internet access is going to be piggy backed on electricity. no more separate BB
>or ISDN or DSL.
<>
Nope, the technology does not work, it only has the support of
Congress. Oh, wait, never mind.
--
Crashj

[zookeeper]

> > NO PHOTOS!! Yes, I'm shouting because you don't seem to "get it." ...
> > DON'T POST BINARIES (aka pictures, photos) ON TEXT-ONLY NEWSGROUPS --
> > compressed or not, they're not appropriate here. Thank you.

<Fireball> wrote in message news:41928260$1@padme....
> Thanks for that. It seems that us in the UK are 'spoilt' with broadband.
> It seems that you guys in USA don't have it. But at 56K that I used for
the
> last 5 years a few 10's of K didn't take an hour to download. What
> connection speed do you have?

My connection speed is not the problem ... the issue is that binaries do not
belong in text-based newsgroups. That's all. Simple message. Don't post
photos or pictures here. Set up a web page, post on any number of available
web sites that offer picture hosting, or use the alt.binary newsgroups. Then
the reader can decide when they want to download pictures, photos, web
pages, etc.
--
Zookeeper

[chagoi]

Crashj wrote:


BPL: Broadband Over power Line
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5163739.html
http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/15/technology/web_outlet/
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/195511_powerline16.html

Hey Crashj
Here's proof that Europe is a lot less in the dark ages than the U.S.
http://www.hydro.co.uk/broadband/index.asp
You can choose between Gold (1M), Silver (500k) and Bronze (150k)
service options, whatever suits your needs and your budget.

"There NAWWW" (In my thickest Pennsylvania Dutch Accent)
I've hopefully satisfied all the proponents/advocates of Top, Bottom,
and In-line Posting. While increasing the on-line download time for our
dialup readers. :-)


>>next internet access is going to be piggy backed on electricity. no more separate BB
>>or ISDN or DSL.

BPL: Broadband Over power Line
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5163739.html
http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/15/technology/web_outlet/
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/195511_powerline16.html

Hey Crashj
Here's proof that Europe is a lot less in the dark ages than the U.S.
http://www.hydro.co.uk/broadband/index.asp
You can choose between Gold (1M), Silver (500k) and Bronze (150k)
service options, whatever suits your needs and your budget.

"There NAWWW" (In my thickest Pennsylvania Dutch Accent)
I've hopefully satisfied all the proponents/advocates of Top, Bottom,
and In-line Posting. While increasing the on-line download time for our
dialup readers. :-)

> Nope, the technology does not work, it only has the support of
> Congress. Oh, wait, never mind.


BPL: Broadband Over power Line
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5163739.html
http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/15/technology/web_outlet/
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/195511_powerline16.html

Hey Crashj
Here's proof that Europe is a lot less in the dark ages than the U.S.
http://www.hydro.co.uk/broadband/index.asp
You can choose between Gold (1M), Silver (500k) and Bronze (150k)
service options, whatever suits your needs and your budget.


"There NAWWW" (In my thickest Pennsylvania Dutch Accent)
I've hopefully satisfied all the proponents/advocates of Top, Bottom,
and In-line Posting. While increasing the on-line download time for our
dialup readers. :-)

/\/\ike
Chagoi
http://ourkoipond DOT com

[Crashj]

On or about Sun, 14 Nov 2004 13:12:34 -0500, chagoi
> wrote something like:
<>
>>>next internet access is going to be piggy backed on electricity. no more separate BB
>>>or ISDN or DSL.
<>
>"There NAWWW" (In my thickest Pennsylvania Dutch Accent)
>I've hopefully satisfied all the proponents/advocates of Top, Bottom,
>and In-line Posting. While increasing the on-line download time for our
>dialup readers. :-)
>
>/\/\ike
>Chagoi
>http://ourkoipond DOT com

Well, actually the trace of the post is completely lost, so I'll just
say that massive amounts of experience with BPL will not overcome
power company greed. The radio spectrum is quit full enough without
the massive amount of noice generated by BPL, or so the radio people
say.
What will be fun to watch is when some one realises that VoIP can be
based on BPL, and "wallah" no more phone companies. Who's going to
switch for you now?
Ten years from now all we will have will be the fourth generation of
cell phones with voice recognition switching. The phone will probably
be build into a nice lapel pin, shaped sort of like the Nike swoop, or
whatever.
Or something.
Obrecpond content: I want mine shaped like a fish:
..
..
<;)))><
--
Crashj

[Benign Vanilla]

I disagree, and hopefully this post is a good example of why I do.

BV.

[Benign Vanilla]

"Nedra" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> You are asking me why I don't trim the extraneous junk on my post.... ??
> Your supposed to go on to the next post, silly. Not read to the end -
> Sheeeez
<snip>

The importance of snippage is saving the space. This is especially true of
long threads. If no one snips, the size of the posts will grow
expologasuperduper hugely and quickly. Especially when you get a lot of "me
too's" in there.

BV.

[Benign Vanilla]

"Ann in Houston" > wrote in message
. com...
<snip>
> Well, then, it seems to me that this should have been the topic of the
whole
> thread. We should push for snipping, rather than for where people put
their
> message.

I concur in full. I am a bottom poster, although I do from time to time
place a quick top posted response. However, I ALWAYS do my best to snip out
irrelevant portions of the message. That is the most important thing, if you
ask me.

BV.

[Benign Vanilla]

"Crashj" > wrote in message
...
<snip>
> The phone will probably be build into a nice lapel pin, shaped sort of
like the Nike swoop, or
> whatever. Or something. Obrecpond content: I want mine shaped like a fish:
<snip>

<posted from the future>
How old school of you...I had my cell phone implanted next to my RFID chip,
in my earlobe.
</posted from the future>

[Derek Broughton]

Benign Vanilla wrote:

> I disagree, and hopefully this post is a good example of why I do.
>
> BV.

Perfect. It really helps to prove the point when you do it a month after
the thread has otherwise died :-)

(at least, I _think_ you must have been suggesting that it's a bad idea not
to include _some_ context)
--
derek

[Benign Vanilla]

I agree with both of your points.

:)

BV.