Student Pilot lands short of runway

[CFLav8r]

Well we had a little mishap here in sunny Florida today.
Seems a student pilot on his first solo flight was on final to runway 25 at
KORL when he was apparently spotted flying the final a little too low. Some
witnesses say that he was warned over the radio that he was too low by
either another pilot or the tower.
The student pilot responded to the warning by pulling up and not applying
power, in effect stalling the airplane over the lake at the approach end of
runway 25.
The airplane stalled and fell into the Lake Barton where the pilot was then
rescued by a passing boater.
The airplane is apparently owned by the local CAP chapter.

David (KORL)

[Peter Gottlieb]

I thought CAP Corporate planes could not be used for primary instruction.


"CFLav8r" > wrote in message
...
> Well we had a little mishap here in sunny Florida today.
> Seems a student pilot on his first solo flight was on final to runway 25
at
> KORL when he was apparently spotted flying the final a little too low.
Some
> witnesses say that he was warned over the radio that he was too low by
> either another pilot or the tower.
> The student pilot responded to the warning by pulling up and not applying
> power, in effect stalling the airplane over the lake at the approach end
of
> runway 25.
> The airplane stalled and fell into the Lake Barton where the pilot was
then
> rescued by a passing boater.
> The airplane is apparently owned by the local CAP chapter.
>
> David (KORL)
>
>

[John Clear]

In article >,
Peter Gottlieb > wrote:
>I thought CAP Corporate planes could not be used for primary instruction.

They can, in certain circumstances. As with everything in CAP, there is
a pile of regulations to comply with, but I did my first 20hrs at a CAP
flight school (week long 'flight camp') when I was a cadet.

I'm not in CAP any more, but back when I was, the Florida Wing of CAP
wasn't know for close adherence to the regulations.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.panix.com/~jac

[Matthew P. Cummings]

On Thu, 27 May 2004 03:58:58 +0000, Peter Gottlieb wrote:

> I thought CAP Corporate planes could not be used for primary instruction.

If you're a cadet you can, if you're a senior member you can't.

[Jay Honeck]

> The student pilot responded to the warning by pulling up and not applying
> power, in effect stalling the airplane over the lake at the approach end
of
> runway 25.

I'd say the student wasn't *quite* ready...

I'd not want to be his CFI tonight...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Hankal]

>I'd not want to be his CFI tonight...
>--

He may have been ready to solo, but got the jitters at the last moment.

[Richard Hertz]

then he wasn't ready...

"Hankal" > wrote in message
...
> >I'd not want to be his CFI tonight...
> >--
>
> He may have been ready to solo, but got the jitters at the last moment.

[Peter Duniho]

"Richard Hertz" > wrote in message
. net...
> "Hankal" > wrote in message
> ...
> > He may have been ready to solo, but got the jitters at the last moment.
>
> then he wasn't ready...

By that logic, any pilot who has an accident wasn't ready to be a pilot. Or
any Usenet poster who top-posts isn't ready to be a Usenet poster.

Pete

[Fred]

CFLav8r wrote:

> Well we had a little mishap here in sunny Florida today.
> Seems a student pilot on his first solo flight was on final to runway 25 at
> KORL when he was apparently spotted flying the final a little too low. Some
> witnesses say that he was warned over the radio that he was too low by
> either another pilot or the tower.
> The student pilot responded to the warning by pulling up and not applying
> power, in effect stalling the airplane over the lake at the approach end of
> runway 25.
> The airplane stalled and fell into the Lake Barton where the pilot was then
> rescued by a passing boater.
> The airplane is apparently owned by the local CAP chapter.

The airplane involved appears to be owned by a private Florida-based
corporation, not CAP. How did CAP get associated with the accident story?
Sounds like the passing boater was lucky that the plane missed him based on the
reported distance that he was missed.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Richard Hertz" > wrote in message
. net...
> then he wasn't ready...


Sometimes, "**** happens."

I'm sure the FAA will be very interested in every detail of the instruction
up until that point, looking at the student's logbook, school/CFI/CAP
records, aircraft records, and anything else they can find. The whole
situation will likely be scrutinized very carefully. But, sometimes,
despite the best of intentions and what seems like good judgement, accidents
occur. Even to experienced pilots.

[Jay Honeck]

> I'm sure the FAA will be very interested in every detail of the
instruction
> up until that point, looking at the student's logbook, school/CFI/CAP
> records, aircraft records, and anything else they can find. The whole
> situation will likely be scrutinized very carefully. But, sometimes,
> despite the best of intentions and what seems like good judgement,
accidents
> occur. Even to experienced pilots.

And *that* is why I wouldn't want to be his CFI tonight.

I'm sure the poor sap is laying awake right now, wondering what the heck he
could have done differently...and the answer might very well be "nothing..."
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[The Weiss Family]

Now you've got me nervous.
What's "top-posting"?

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Richard Hertz" > wrote in message
> . net...
> > "Hankal" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > He may have been ready to solo, but got the jitters at the last
moment.
> >
> > then he wasn't ready...
>
> By that logic, any pilot who has an accident wasn't ready to be a pilot.
Or
> any Usenet poster who top-posts isn't ready to be a Usenet poster.
>
> Pete
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"The Weiss Family" > wrote in message
...
> What's "top-posting"?

It's what you just did.

[Peter Gottlieb]

Top posting, bottom posting... like high wing vs. low wing.


"The Weiss Family" > wrote in message
...
> Now you've got me nervous.
> What's "top-posting"?
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Richard Hertz" > wrote in message
> > . net...
> > > "Hankal" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > He may have been ready to solo, but got the jitters at the last
> moment.
> > >
> > > then he wasn't ready...
> >
> > By that logic, any pilot who has an accident wasn't ready to be a pilot.
> Or
> > any Usenet poster who top-posts isn't ready to be a Usenet poster.
> >
> > Pete
> >
> >
>
>

[ET]

(Hankal) wrote in news:20040527203333.13190.00000017@mb-
m20.aol.com:

>>I'd not want to be his CFI tonight...
>>--
>
> He may have been ready to solo, but got the jitters at the last moment.

OK, as I've said before, I've not had a formal lesson yet, but I bet all
the money in my wallet he would have powered to the runway had he not been
"warned".

He was probably coming in low, started to reconize it and perhaps even
started to ad power a little power, or at least was mentally thinking in
that direction. Being nervious to begin with, he REALLY freaked out when
all the guy's on the ground started yelling at him on the radio and was
conviced by the warnings that he was even lower than he was.... panicked,
pulled up instictivly, and stalled.


Now, there's less then $20 in my wallet >:-) so that's about how conviced
I am of my theory. But that's how I visualize it.

--
ET >:)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Peter Gottlieb]

"ET" > wrote in message
...
>
> OK, as I've said before, I've not had a formal lesson yet, but I bet all
> the money in my wallet he would have powered to the runway had he not been
> "warned".
>


Or, had he not been warned, he would have hit something on the way in.

I don't know the airport and what the obstructions are like so I can't
really say. What might have happened if he wasn't warned will never be
known.

[Peter Duniho]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
> Top posting, bottom posting... like high wing vs. low wing.

You wish. No one that cares about Usenet etiquette agrees with you.

[Newps]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> . net...
> > Top posting, bottom posting... like high wing vs. low wing.
>
> You wish. No one that cares about Usenet etiquette agrees with you.

Different newsgroups have different preferences.

[zatatime]

On Fri, 28 May 2004 12:41:30 -0600, "Newps" >
wrote:

>
>"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
>> . net...
>> > Top posting, bottom posting... like high wing vs. low wing.
>>
>> You wish. No one that cares about Usenet etiquette agrees with you.
>
>Different newsgroups have different preferences.

None that I've ever been to. Top posting is a generally frowned upon
technique.

z
>

[Greg Esres]

<<No one that cares about Usenet etiquette agrees with you.>>

I hate bottom posting, at least when the person includes the entire
previous post. That makes me have to scroll down.

[John Harper]

Me too. Generally if the interesting stuff doesn't at least
start in the first screenful then I just skip it.

John

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<No one that cares about Usenet etiquette agrees with you.>>
>
> I hate bottom posting, at least when the person includes the entire
> previous post. That makes me have to scroll down.
>
>
>

[Peter Gottlieb]

See, what did I tell you! Just like the high wing vs. low wing debate!


"John Harper" > wrote in message
news:1085779096.987250@sj-nntpcache-5...
> Me too. Generally if the interesting stuff doesn't at least
> start in the first screenful then I just skip it.
>
> John
>
> "Greg Esres" > wrote in message
> ...
> > <<No one that cares about Usenet etiquette agrees with you.>>
> >
> > I hate bottom posting, at least when the person includes the entire
> > previous post. That makes me have to scroll down.
> >


See, what did I tell you! Just like the high wing vs. low wing
debate!

(Staggerwing-type posting!)

[G.R. Patterson III]

Greg Esres wrote:
>
> I hate bottom posting, at least when the person includes the entire
> previous post. That makes me have to scroll down.

Yes, failing to trim quoted text is even more frowned upon.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Peter Duniho]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> I hate bottom posting, at least when the person includes the entire
> previous post. That makes me have to scroll down.

Well, since quoting the entire previous message is also poor etiquette,
people who do that are in no way an argument in favor of top-posting.

[Peter Duniho]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
> See, what did I tell you! Just like the high wing vs. low wing debate!

How so?

No one has argued in favor of top-posting as a form of etiquette. They've
only argued in favor of it as a form of laziness and a "solution" to another
form of poor etiquette.

[Peter Gottlieb]

Some people like top-posting, especially for message streams where there is
an advantage of the history being preserved and a quick note is all that is
required where the response can be seen as soon as the message is opened.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> another form of poor etiquette.

And some people like bottom posting, for it follows a more logical stream of
thought.

I have heard vocal arguments for both, just like the high/low wing question.
And, just like high and low wing planes, both do the job. If you lived in a
world with only high wing planes, and only top posting, I'm sure life would
go on just fine.

[Peter Duniho]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
> Some people like top-posting

Some people LIKE it. But no one has a good argument in favor of it on the
basis of etiquette. None of the so-called "reasons" for liking it make any
sense on Usenet, and that's doubly so when the top-poster does the usual
"include the entire previous post".

Pete

[Martin Hotze]

On Fri, 28 May 2004 12:41:30 -0600, Newps wrote:

>> > Top posting, bottom posting... like high wing vs. low wing.
>>
>> You wish. No one that cares about Usenet etiquette agrees with you.
>
>Different newsgroups have different preferences.

*woahh* ... bashing NOW!
there are microsoft.* groups and there are ALL*ALL!microsoft groups.

#m

--
Martin!!! Maaaaartiiiin!!! Can you please flame this guy for me?
'HECTOP' in rec.aviation.piloting

[Peter Gottlieb]

Actually I think there are a lot of people...

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> . net...
> > Some people like top-posting
>
> Some people LIKE it. But no one has a good argument in favor of it on the
> basis of etiquette. None of the so-called "reasons" for liking it make
any
> sense on Usenet, and that's doubly so when the top-poster does the usual
> "include the entire previous post".
>

who don't give it much thought one way or the other.

But if it's that important to you, I will try to remember your preference.

[mike regish]

Good one...:-)

mike regish

"The Weiss Family" > wrote in message
...
> Now you've got me nervous.
> What's "top-posting"?
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Richard Hertz" > wrote in message
> > . net...
> > > "Hankal" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > He may have been ready to solo, but got the jitters at the last
> moment.
> > >
> > > then he wasn't ready...
> >
> > By that logic, any pilot who has an accident wasn't ready to be a pilot.
> Or
> > any Usenet poster who top-posts isn't ready to be a Usenet poster.
> >
> > Pete
> >
> >
>
>

[mike regish]

I prefer top posting...;-)

mike regish

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> . net...
> > Top posting, bottom posting... like high wing vs. low wing.
>
> You wish. No one that cares about Usenet etiquette agrees with you.
>
>

[mike regish]

I prefer not to have to scroll down each and every message. IF I need to see
what's being replied to, THEN I can scroll down.

There. I've argued in favor of top posting.

I really wish my annual was done.

mike regish

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> . net...
> > See, what did I tell you! Just like the high wing vs. low wing debate!
>
> How so?
>
> No one has argued in favor of top-posting as a form of etiquette. They've
> only argued in favor of it as a form of laziness and a "solution" to
another
> form of poor etiquette.
>
>

[mike regish]

I actually DISLIKE bottom posting. It's a PIA to have to scroll down every
message.

mike regish

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> . net...
> > Some people like top-posting
>
> Some people LIKE it. But no one has a good argument in favor of it on the
> basis of etiquette. None of the so-called "reasons" for liking it make
any
> sense on Usenet, and that's doubly so when the top-poster does the usual
> "include the entire previous post".
>
> Pete
>
>

[mike regish]

In terms of etiquette, I think it's rude to make me work harder to read a
message.

mike regish

"mike regish" > wrote in message
news:Ol1uc.20109$n_6.11921@attbi_s53...
> I actually DISLIKE bottom posting. It's a PIA to have to scroll down every
> message.
>
> mike regish
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> > . net...
> > > Some people like top-posting
> >
> > Some people LIKE it. But no one has a good argument in favor of it on
the
> > basis of etiquette. None of the so-called "reasons" for liking it make
> any
> > sense on Usenet, and that's doubly so when the top-poster does the usual
> > "include the entire previous post".
> >
> > Pete
> >
> >
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
news:Ol1uc.20109$n_6.11921@attbi_s53...
> I actually DISLIKE bottom posting. It's a PIA to have to scroll down every
> message.

Like I said, some people do argue in favor of top-posting out of laziness.
And as I said, you would only have to scroll in situations where people
don't trim the quotes properly.

Done properly, even lazy people would be fine with bottom-posting.

Did you have to scroll to read this? No, you didn't.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
news:Ck1uc.12524$js4.973@attbi_s51...
> [...] There. I've argued in favor of top posting.

On the basis of laziness, yes.

[Philip Sondericker]

in article , Peter Duniho at
wrote on 5/29/04 9:41 AM:

> "mike regish" > wrote in message
> news:Ol1uc.20109$n_6.11921@attbi_s53...
>> I actually DISLIKE bottom posting. It's a PIA to have to scroll down every
>> message.
>
> Like I said, some people do argue in favor of top-posting out of laziness.
> And as I said, you would only have to scroll in situations where people
> don't trim the quotes properly.
>
> Done properly, even lazy people would be fine with bottom-posting.
>
> Did you have to scroll to read this? No, you didn't.
>
> Pete

Top-posting is one thing, but what really gets me are the geniuses who reply
to posts without quoting ANYTHING--you know, the ones that say things like
"I completely agree with you", with absolutely no indication of whom they
are replying to.

[Peter Duniho]

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
> Top-posting is one thing, but what really gets me are the geniuses who
reply
> to posts without quoting ANYTHING

They balance out the "geniuses" who reply to posts while quoting the
*entire* post to which they are replying, including the signature and
*previously* quoted material.

[mike regish]

Nor did I have to make personal attacks.

mike regish

Did you know what I was replying to? Yes you did.
"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "mike regish" > wrote in message
> news:Ol1uc.20109$n_6.11921@attbi_s53...
> > I actually DISLIKE bottom posting. It's a PIA to have to scroll down
every
> > message.
>
> Like I said, some people do argue in favor of top-posting out of laziness.
> And as I said, you would only have to scroll in situations where people
> don't trim the quotes properly.
>
> Done properly, even lazy people would be fine with bottom-posting.
>
> Did you have to scroll to read this? No, you didn't.
>
> Pete
>
>

[Philip Sondericker]

in article , Peter Duniho at
wrote on 5/29/04 9:56 AM:

> "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Top-posting is one thing, but what really gets me are the geniuses who
>> reply
>> to posts without quoting ANYTHING
>
> They balance out the "geniuses" who reply to posts while quoting the
> *entire* post to which they are replying, including the signature and
> *previously* quoted material.

Previously quoted material may occasionally be needed for context (see above
for example). As for the signature thing, this is the first time I've ever
heard it mentioned by anyone, but I suppose it's no big deal for me to avoid
quoting them.

[Teacherjh]

>>
As for the signature thing, this is the first time I've ever
heard it mentioned by anyone, but I suppose it's no big deal for me to avoid
quoting them.
<<

A proper sig line begins with dash dash space (see mine). Proper newsreaders
can be set to filter out everything after a proper sig marker. Thus, anybody
who quotes something including the sig is liable to have the meat of their post
chopped off just before it begins.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[zatatime]

On Sat, 29 May 2004 17:11:46 GMT, "mike regish"
> wrote:

>Nor did I have to make personal attacks.
>
>mike regish
>
>Did you know what I was replying to? Yes you did.
>"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>> "mike regish" > wrote in message
>> news:Ol1uc.20109$n_6.11921@attbi_s53...
>> > I actually DISLIKE bottom posting. It's a PIA to have to scroll down
>every
>> > message.
>>
>> Like I said, some people do argue in favor of top-posting out of laziness.
>> And as I said, you would only have to scroll in situations where people
>> don't trim the quotes properly.
>>
>> Done properly, even lazy people would be fine with bottom-posting.
>>
>> Did you have to scroll to read this? No, you didn't.
>>
>> Pete
>>
>>
>

I didn't see any personal attack. Just someone confirming a prior
point.

z

[mike regish]

I think there was an implication that I was lazy. Maybe not, but it sure
looks it. Anybody else get that feeling?

I also think Pete is confused about the difference between laziness and
efficiency. Laziness is a reluctance to take necessary steps to accomplish a
task. Efficiency is the reluctance to take unnecessary steps to complete a
task. Like unnecessarily haveing to scroll down.

What exactly was the prior point he was confirming?

I also don't see any way top or bottom posting has anything to do with any
kind of etiquette. I offered a reasoned opinion why I prefer top posting.
That's all. It's not like I'm blowing my nose in your soup or something.
This etiquette thing is just a bunch of arbitrary, archaic and, frankly in
many cases, stupid rules.

And so, as unimportant as my time is, I'm done wasting it on this idiotic
subject. Suck it up and deal with it.

mike (I'm gonna top post forever) regish

P.S. I had to unnecessarily scroll to the bottom to read your reply. So some
even properly trimmed posts require scrolling with bottom posters.


"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
> >
>
> I didn't see any personal attack. Just someone confirming a prior
> point.
>
> z

[[email protected]]

I am with You on this on Mike!

I HATE scrolling down to read the latest...

Remember when we used paper files? The MOST RECENT info was
placed on top, and when you file e-mail, the MOST RECENT is at the
top... newspapers in the library, MOST RECENT on top...invoices?
same.....calendars ? ...same....

And now we are supposed to place our MOST RECENT "news"
all the way on the BOTTOM????

I don't thing so...

Dave



On Sat, 29 May 2004 14:45:02 GMT, "mike regish" >
wrote:

>I actually DISLIKE bottom posting. It's a PIA to have to scroll down every
>message.
>
>mike regish
>
>"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
>> . net...
>> > Some people like top-posting
>>
>> Some people LIKE it. But no one has a good argument in favor of it on the
>> basis of etiquette. None of the so-called "reasons" for liking it make
>any
>> sense on Usenet, and that's doubly so when the top-poster does the usual
>> "include the entire previous post".
>>
>> Pete
>>
>>
>

[mike regish]

And this is being argued on the basis of etiquette, of all things. I just
don't get it. Etiquette has to do with manners adn politeness and such. I
don't get where we're somehow being rude by posting replies on top. I tried
to point out a "practical" reason to post on top, but Pete thinks I'm
somehow being rude by trying to make things easier.

Oh well. To each, etc.

And here I've gone and wasted even more of my not so valuable time when I
said I wouldn't.

Thanks for the vote of support, though. Maybe someday reason will rule and
not arbitrary rules.

Sorry if I've offended anybody by top posting again. Guess it's just my
nature to be rude.

mike (I like high wings because I like to look down) regish

> wrote in message
...
> I am with You on this on Mike!
>
> I HATE scrolling down to read the latest...
>
> Remember when we used paper files? The MOST RECENT info was
> placed on top, and when you file e-mail, the MOST RECENT is at the
> top... newspapers in the library, MOST RECENT on top...invoices?
> same.....calendars ? ...same....
>
> And now we are supposed to place our MOST RECENT "news"
> all the way on the BOTTOM????
>
> I don't thing so...
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> On Sat, 29 May 2004 14:45:02 GMT, "mike regish" >
> wrote:
>
> >I actually DISLIKE bottom posting. It's a PIA to have to scroll down
every
> >message.
> >
> >mike regish
> >
> >"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> >> . net...
> >> > Some people like top-posting
> >>
> >> Some people LIKE it. But no one has a good argument in favor of it on
the
> >> basis of etiquette. None of the so-called "reasons" for liking it make
> >any
> >> sense on Usenet, and that's doubly so when the top-poster does the
usual
> >> "include the entire previous post".
> >>
> >> Pete
> >>
> >>
> >
>

[Peter Duniho]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
news:9E8uc.15151$4A6.11070@attbi_s52...
> P.S. I had to unnecessarily scroll to the bottom to read your reply. So
some
> even properly trimmed posts require scrolling with bottom posters.

The post the bottom to which you had to scroll was not properly trimmed.

[zatatime]

On Sat, 29 May 2004 23:02:38 GMT, "mike regish"
> wrote:

>I think there was an implication that I was lazy. Maybe not, but it sure
>looks it. Anybody else get that feeling?
>
Not at all that You were/are lazy, but a generalization that top
posters seem to be lazy.

>I also think Pete is confused about the difference between laziness and
>efficiency. Laziness is a reluctance to take necessary steps to accomplish a
>task.
You forgot the word PROPERLY at the end of this sentence. Also, I
don't think Pete is confused at all. I do think he's been around
usenet for quite some time though.

Efficiency is the reluctance to take unnecessary steps to complete a
>task. Like unnecessarily haveing to scroll down.
>
Efficiency actually has nothing to do with reluctance of any kind, you
may want to check Webster's on this one.

>What exactly was the prior point he was confirming?

That top posters for the most part are too lazy to scroll down in
order to properly follow, or add to a thread. Have you lost the
concept that quickly?
>
>I also don't see any way top or bottom posting has anything to do with any
>kind of etiquette.

So that makes it wrong, because YOU can't see the point. Must be nice
having the world revolve around you.

I offered a reasoned opinion why I prefer top posting.
>That's all. It's not like I'm blowing my nose in your soup or something.

It seems you do get agitated fairly easily. I didn't blow my nose in
your soup either, just gave a two statement reply without any
emotional bias. Wish I could say the same for yours.

>This etiquette thing is just a bunch of arbitrary, archaic and, frankly in
>many cases, stupid rules.

Ahhh, once again what is not understood had to be founded by old,
idiotic, and generally incompetent people. Interesting.
>
>And so, as unimportant as my time is, I'm done wasting it on this idiotic
>subject
I hope so.

Suck it up and deal with it.
>
Done (nym placed in kill filter accordingly).

>mike (I'm gonna top post forever) regish

I'd have another sig for you, but I'm trying not to blow my nose in
your soup.
>
>P.S. I had to unnecessarily scroll to the bottom to read your reply. So some
>even properly trimmed posts require scrolling with bottom posters.

What else would I expect from an Outlook Express user? When I read my
reply I had plenty of white space at the bottom. You may want to look
at the configuration of your message window.
>
>


>"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
>> >
>>
>> I didn't see any personal attack. Just someone confirming a prior
>> point.
>>
>> z
>

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 30 May 2004 00:31:14 GMT, wrote:

> I HATE scrolling down to read the latest...

it is a free world.
do whatever you want but don't start crying when top posters are not read
by bottom posters (and vice versa).
you have the right to post, but nobody has the duty to read the postings.

> Remember when we used paper files? The MOST RECENT info was
>placed on top, and when you file e-mail, the MOST RECENT is at the

that email replies are put on top is due to the sick clients from one
bigger company.

>top... newspapers in the library, MOST RECENT on top...invoices?
>same.....calendars ? ...same....

and books? you expect the end of each page on top of the page?
if you want to put an analogy to real life then books or sheets of paper
are IMNSHO the best.

> And now we are supposed to place our MOST RECENT "news"
>all the way on the BOTTOM????

it is threading. you know? na. probably not.

> Dave
>
> (.... useless fullquote snipped ...)

#m

--
Martin!!! Maaaaartiiiin!!! Can you please flame this guy for me?
'HECTOP' in rec.aviation.piloting

[mike regish]

Ok. I'm going to break my promise to myself again because I'm just
overwhelmingly curious about this.

I've stated a reason why top posting is a personal preference of mine. But
the argument against top posting seems to be primarily one of etiquette-or
netiquette. To me this is like saying that it's not proper etiquette to fly
a high wing plane (or low wing depending on what you fly). I read them
all-top or bottom. I just prefer top. I prefer a high wing because I like to
look down and I like to take pictures. I have absolutely nothing against
people who fly low wings. I'm sure they have their reasons for that
particular preference. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. I
prefer top posting because I like to go from message to message with the
arrow keys rather than the mouse when I can. Normal etiquette has to do with
things like where the forks and knives go in a dinner setting. I can find
them as long as they're somewhere on the table. I don't care where you put
them, but in formal setting there is a "right" side and a "wrong" side,
according to etiquette. Again, I'm not going to stop patronizing a
restaurant because they had the audacity to put the silverware in the wrong
spots. I can see where the snootier patrons might somehow be offended and
refuse to go there anymore, or complain to the server or manager or
something equally petty. I just don't consider it, or myself, to be that
important. What IS bad netiquette-and I can see the reason why, even though
I'm guilty of it right now-is posting off topic. Yet, ironically, the one
who started the off topic posting is the one complaining about netiquette.
Also, by implying that top posters are lazy, he's indirectly confirmed that
top posting is easier.

I also preferred the way I could sort threads with Netscape, but that
software has caused problems with my computer, so I removed it and deal with
some minor inconveniences in OE, but that also seems to somehow be a
violation of etiquette, or just some reason to make me somehow inferior to
those who use other readers.

I don't mean to prolong this thread, but I'm really trying to understand how
anybody can get their panties in such a bunch over something so trivial and
so much a matter of personal preference.

And if my plane wasn't getting its annual right now, I wouldn't even be
participating in this NG because of these types of arguments or
debates-both, I guess since some is debate and some is just argumentative.

If you prefer bottom posting, by all means go right ahead. I prefer sending
and receiving top posts, unless I'm responding to particular pieces of a
post, in which case I post my response below each particular piece. On most
posts I can rather easily tell what's being responded to, but if there's any
confusion I know I can scroll down to clear it up.

I also don't mind some people not trimming their posts as I don't always get
the original post if I come in late. Then I look for a post that hasn't been
snipped to get caught up. And they certainly don't seem to take up any more
time or space than snipped posts. I wouldn't want them all like that, but I
find a few to be helpful. Yet that is almost a capital crime to some folks.

Is there an Emily Post of the internet? If so, does she have a rationale for
all the rules of netiquette? Are some arbitrary? Traditional? Practical?

I don't really NEED to know. Just trying to make sense of something that
seems to me to be pure nonsense coming from otherwise very sensible people.

mike regish



"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...

> On Sun, 30 May 2004 00:31:14 GMT, wrote:
>
> > I HATE scrolling down to read the latest...
>
> it is a free world.
> do whatever you want but don't start crying when top posters are not read
> by bottom posters (and vice versa).
> you have the right to post, but nobody has the duty to read the postings.
>

[Teacherjh]

>>
Ok. I'm going to break my promise to myself again because I'm just
overwhelmingly curious about this. [...] the argument against top
posting seems to be primarily one of etiquette-or
netiquette. To me this is like saying that it's not proper etiquette to fly
a high wing plane (or low wing depending on what you fly).
<<

IMHO top posting and bottom posting each have their uses, as does "nop" posting
(posting a reply which, does not quote anything, but does address points in the
thread). Nop posting works in some situations if the post is self-contained.

Etiquette is based on the idea of making things easy and pleasant for others.
To use the (not very good) airplane analogy, it's more like saying it's not
proper etiquette to fly =passengers= in a low wing plane (because they can't
see down) or in a high wing plane (because it makes them look like sissies* ).
The focus is on the passengers.

Personally, if the post lends itself I like to see a snippet of what is being
replied to before I see the reply to that point, and then to see the next
snippet before the reply to =it=. I do not want to see a whole slug first, and
it annoys me to have to scroll down the entire post before I get to the
original material. I often skip those (they are often followed by "me too" or
by comments whose reltionship to the post requires me to go back and find
specific things there.

Posts come to servers way out of order, so the context is often needed.

However, there are some threads in which the context is evident from the
original material, or where the posts tend to be presented in order to most
readers. In those cases, posting the reply first, and then the post being
replied to for reference =just in case= it's needed, works best for most.

However, on USENET, everyone is an expert whose Exalted Opinions (tm) must be
followed by fiat. When this doesn't happen, sixteen million rulers come down
on somebody's knuckles, in the name of kindness.

Jose
* well, I had to think of something!


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Windecks]

Notice the top post...

This whole debate reminds me of the ****wit who years ago told me my long
email was a waste of precious net bandwidth, and merited some form of
corporal punishment. There's nothing like righteous indignation on trivial
matters to make one wonder how some people's brains actually work.

USENET is free. It's a nice way to share thoughts on topics of common
interest. If you don't like the way a particular post looks, DON"T READ
IT!!!

"mike regish" > wrote in message
news:l4ouc.19595$eY2.15166@attbi_s02...
> Ok. I'm going to break my promise to myself again because I'm just
> overwhelmingly curious about this.
>
> I've stated a reason why top posting is a personal preference of mine. But
> the argument against top posting seems to be primarily one of etiquette-or
> netiquette. To me this is like saying that it's not proper etiquette to
fly
> a high wing plane (or low wing depending on what you fly). I read them
> all-top or bottom. I just prefer top. I prefer a high wing because I like
to
> look down and I like to take pictures. I have absolutely nothing against
> people who fly low wings. I'm sure they have their reasons for that
> particular preference. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. I
> prefer top posting because I like to go from message to message with the
> arrow keys rather than the mouse when I can. Normal etiquette has to do
with
> things like where the forks and knives go in a dinner setting. I can find
> them as long as they're somewhere on the table. I don't care where you put
> them, but in formal setting there is a "right" side and a "wrong" side,
> according to etiquette. Again, I'm not going to stop patronizing a
> restaurant because they had the audacity to put the silverware in the
wrong
> spots. I can see where the snootier patrons might somehow be offended and
> refuse to go there anymore, or complain to the server or manager or
> something equally petty. I just don't consider it, or myself, to be that
> important. What IS bad netiquette-and I can see the reason why, even
though
> I'm guilty of it right now-is posting off topic. Yet, ironically, the one
> who started the off topic posting is the one complaining about netiquette.
> Also, by implying that top posters are lazy, he's indirectly confirmed
that
> top posting is easier.
>
> I also preferred the way I could sort threads with Netscape, but that
> software has caused problems with my computer, so I removed it and deal
with
> some minor inconveniences in OE, but that also seems to somehow be a
> violation of etiquette, or just some reason to make me somehow inferior to
> those who use other readers.
>
> I don't mean to prolong this thread, but I'm really trying to understand
how
> anybody can get their panties in such a bunch over something so trivial
and
> so much a matter of personal preference.
>
> And if my plane wasn't getting its annual right now, I wouldn't even be
> participating in this NG because of these types of arguments or
> debates-both, I guess since some is debate and some is just argumentative.
>
> If you prefer bottom posting, by all means go right ahead. I prefer
sending
> and receiving top posts, unless I'm responding to particular pieces of a
> post, in which case I post my response below each particular piece. On
most
> posts I can rather easily tell what's being responded to, but if there's
any
> confusion I know I can scroll down to clear it up.
>
> I also don't mind some people not trimming their posts as I don't always
get
> the original post if I come in late. Then I look for a post that hasn't
been
> snipped to get caught up. And they certainly don't seem to take up any
more
> time or space than snipped posts. I wouldn't want them all like that, but
I
> find a few to be helpful. Yet that is almost a capital crime to some
folks.
>
> Is there an Emily Post of the internet? If so, does she have a rationale
for
> all the rules of netiquette? Are some arbitrary? Traditional? Practical?
>
> I don't really NEED to know. Just trying to make sense of something that
> seems to me to be pure nonsense coming from otherwise very sensible
people.
>
> mike regish
>
>
>
> "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > On Sun, 30 May 2004 00:31:14 GMT, wrote:
> >
> > > I HATE scrolling down to read the latest...
> >
> > it is a free world.
> > do whatever you want but don't start crying when top posters are not
read
> > by bottom posters (and vice versa).
> > you have the right to post, but nobody has the duty to read the
postings.
> >
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Windecks" > wrote in message
om...
> [...]
> USENET is free.

If you think Usenet, or the associated bandwidth and storage costs, is free,
you are a "****wit" yourself.

[mike regish]

OK. Maybe not "free", but included in the price.

mike regish

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Windecks" > wrote in message
> om...
> > [...]
> > USENET is free.
>
> If you think Usenet, or the associated bandwidth and storage costs, is
free,
> you are a "****wit" yourself.
>
>

[David CL Francis]

On Fri, 28 May 2004 at 21:16:29 in message
>, Greg Esres
> wrote:
><<No one that cares about Usenet etiquette agrees with you.>>
>
>I hate bottom posting, at least when the person includes the entire
>previous post. That makes me have to scroll down.
>
I hate it when, either with top or bottom posting, people include
entire messages with only small comments and sometimes those messages
are 4 or more deep. That is in newsgroups of course. Batting backwards
and forwards to a support site is quite different IMHO,

--
David CL Francis

[David CL Francis]

On Sat, 29 May 2004 at 14:45:02 in message
<Ol1uc.20109$n_6.11921@attbi_s53>, mike regish >
wrote:

>I actually DISLIKE bottom posting. It's a PIA to have to scroll down every
>message.
>
>mike regish

Since your message stands by itself and merely states your opinion and
reason then there was no need to include any part of the previous
message at all. It that case the distinction between top and bottom
would not exist. :-)
--
David CL Francis

[David CL Francis]

On Sat, 29 May 2004 at 17:16:14 in message
>, Philip Sondericker
> wrote:
>
>Previously quoted material may occasionally be needed for context (see above
>for example). As for the signature thing, this is the first time I've ever
>heard it mentioned by anyone, but I suppose it's no big deal for me to avoid
>quoting them.
>
If the message is correctly constructed with <hyphen><hyphen><space> as
a signature separator then, if you have a newsreader that works as they
are intended to work, the signature will be automatically removed when
you press reply.

You may have one guess as to which system does not work as it should.
The system really needs changing, as adding to the failure rate are many
people who appear to delete what they must assume is a surplus space
after the two hyphens!
--
David CL Francis

[David CL Francis]

On Sat, 29 May 2004 at 23:02:38 in message
<9E8uc.15151$4A6.11070@attbi_s52>, mike regish >
wrote:

>P.S. I had to unnecessarily scroll to the bottom to read your reply. So some
>even properly trimmed posts require scrolling with bottom posters.

But the information on who you were replying to was below your statement
above.

Top posting can be similar to writing a letter that includes a statement
like, 'we wish to comment on your statement that you will somewhere
below this one.'

Both methods are made much worse by a failure to crop.
--
David CL Francis

[David CL Francis]

On Sun, 30 May 2004 at 00:31:14 in message
>,
wrote:

> Remember when we used paper files? The MOST RECENT info was
>placed on top, and when you file e-mail, the MOST RECENT is at the
>top... newspapers in the library, MOST RECENT on top...invoices?
>same.....calendars ? ...same....
>
> And now we are supposed to place our MOST RECENT "news"
>all the way on the BOTTOM????

Business correspondence and exchanges with someone who is providing
support are quite different from Usenet. In the first two it can be
quite reasonable to include previous correspondence.

But surely Usenet is a written version of a verbal discussion? It is
fast and the response can be quick. If I was talking to you I would not
comment on things before you said them - oh I don't know perhaps I
would! :-)
--
David CL Francis

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 30 May 2004 16:36:33 GMT, mike regish wrote:

>Ok. I'm going to break my promise to myself again because I'm just
>overwhelmingly curious about this.

well, I had to scroll down and read what and whom you are referring to.
then I scrolled back up to read your post.

>I've stated a reason why top posting is a personal preference of mine. But

well, live with it. it is ok for me. but it is also ok for me to adjust the
score. well, I am not a factor here, but you get the idea.

>the argument against top posting seems to be primarily one of etiquette-or
>netiquette. To me this is like saying that it's not proper etiquette to fly

nah. it is how things are read. from top the way down to the end.

(...)
>I also preferred the way I could sort threads with Netscape, but that
>software has caused problems with my computer, so I removed it and deal with
>some minor inconveniences in OE, but that also seems to somehow be a
>violation of etiquette, or just some reason to make me somehow inferior to
>those who use other readers.

everybody gets what he deserves.

(...)
>I also don't mind some people not trimming their posts as I don't always get
>the original post if I come in late. Then I look for a post that hasn't been

heck. don't you think that pictures would be nice to be attached to
postings? it would explain so much.
where is the border? what is ok and what not?

>Is there an Emily Post of the internet? If so, does she have a rationale for
>all the rules of netiquette? Are some arbitrary? Traditional? Practical?

most of the rules (netiquette for the net, etiquette for real life) come
out of practice.

>I don't really NEED to know. Just trying to make sense of something that
>seems to me to be pure nonsense coming from otherwise very sensible people.
>
>mike regish
>
( ... fullquote snipped ....)

#m

--
Martin!!! Maaaaartiiiin!!! Can you please flame this guy for me?
'HECTOP' in rec.aviation.piloting

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 30 May 2004 17:58:42 GMT, mike regish wrote:

>OK. Maybe not "free", but included in the price.
>

a good one.
do you know how many ISPs stopped providing usenet?
many ISPs have newsservers because there are people working in the IT
department who care.

>mike regish
>

#m


>> > [...]
>> > USENET is free.
>>
>> If you think Usenet, or the associated bandwidth and storage costs, is
>free,
>> you are a "****wit" yourself.
>>
>>
>

--
Martin!!! Maaaaartiiiin!!! Can you please flame this guy for me?
'HECTOP' in rec.aviation.piloting

[Philip Sondericker]

in article , David CL Francis at
wrote on 5/30/04 2:08 PM:

> On Sat, 29 May 2004 at 17:16:14 in message
> >, Philip Sondericker
> > wrote:
>>
>> Previously quoted material may occasionally be needed for context (see above
>> for example). As for the signature thing, this is the first time I've ever
>> heard it mentioned by anyone, but I suppose it's no big deal for me to avoid
>> quoting them.
>>
> If the message is correctly constructed with <hyphen><hyphen><space> as
> a signature separator then, if you have a newsreader that works as they
> are intended to work, the signature will be automatically removed when
> you press reply.

My newsreader must be correctly configured, because I've noticed that it
indeed does this (as you can see below--I swear it did it on its own!). This
renders somewhat ironic a previous poster taking me to task for not editing
out his signature, when it turns out he's not even separating it correctly.

> You may have one guess as to which system does not work as it should.
> The system really needs changing, as adding to the failure rate are many
> people who appear to delete what they must assume is a surplus space
> after the two hyphens!

[Paul Sengupta]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
news:skauc.11218$pt3.1381@attbi_s03...
> Sorry if I've offended anybody by top posting again. Guess it's just my
> nature to be rude.

I generally bottom post. I used to top post. I got used to bottom
posting because I generally like to reply to bits in between. Comment
on different things. If it's all coherent though, I prefer seeing people's
top posts if I'm reading a thread. If I pick up half way through, I
prefer seeing bottom posts as it's in the right order. Really though,
I'm not that fussed...

> mike (I like high wings because I like to look down) regish

I'm lazy. I fly a tricycle geared plane.

Paul

[Peter Duniho]

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
> [...] This
> renders somewhat ironic a previous poster taking me to task for not
editing
> out his signature, when it turns out he's not even separating it
correctly.

I choose to "sign" my posts with a single line, containing only my first
name. If you are trimming quotes (and you ought to be, though you in fact
don't), it is trivial for you to delete that line. It would be silly to add
another four characters to my post (two hyphens, a space, and a line break)
just so people who ought to be trimming quotes anyway don't have to manually
trim the last line of my post.

The only irony is that you still don't seem to get the concept of trimming
quotes.

Pete

[Philip Sondericker]

in article , Peter Duniho at
wrote on 5/30/04 4:50 PM:

> The only irony is

There, I think I've figured it out.

[Tom Ferris]

As this appears to have gone completely off topic, and me not wanting to be
the one to protract this argument further, I thought I'd add my 2ps(UK vers
1.1.0) worth! haha

As far as I'm concerned everyone is entitled to their own opinion. The
variety of the postings not only allows for indiviuality to come across in
the usenet, but also adds some functionality. If everyone bottom posted, it
could be annoying....equally so with bottom posting. Both have there faults,
but both also add some ease to usenet: bottom posting aids continuation of
the thread; top posting aids speed of reading.

Show a bit of love and understanding. Save your energy for the more
important arguments, not netiquette versus the youth of today!

enjoying the posts
Tom Ferris (On the net since 93, 24 yrs old, 65 hrs FAA PPL ASEL in the
UK....not on anyone's side)

PS should I have added a signature break there? I typed it in manually, so
is it a signature or part of the message?!

[mike regish]

Wow. What a mess this one is. No caps. Junk left at the bottom. Sig line
from a relative relic in this thread. My name below your response. Yeesh.

And, no I don't know how many ISPs have stopped providing usenet. Don't see
what the storage problem is with regular file dumping. Bless their caring
hearts.

I would think spam would be a whole lot more egregious and deserving of your
wrath than a few extra lines, or lines not where you like them in usenet. It
certainly wastes a much larger amount of bandwidth.

mike (entire post left intact for a reason) regish


"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 30 May 2004 17:58:42 GMT, mike regish wrote:
>
> >OK. Maybe not "free", but included in the price.
> >
>
> a good one.
> do you know how many ISPs stopped providing usenet?
> many ISPs have newsservers because there are people working in the IT
> department who care.
>
> >mike regish
> >
>
> #m
>
>
> >> > [...]
> >> > USENET is free.
> >>
> >> If you think Usenet, or the associated bandwidth and storage costs, is
> >free,
> >> you are a "****wit" yourself.
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> --
> Martin!!! Maaaaartiiiin!!! Can you please flame this guy for me?
> 'HECTOP' in rec.aviation.piloting

[[email protected]]

Interspersed post follows...

On Sun, 30 May 2004 14:22:57 GMT, Martin Hotze <gov
> wrote:
>
>> I HATE scrolling down to read the latest...
>
>it is a free world.
>do whatever you want but don't start crying when top posters are not read
>by bottom posters (and vice versa).
>you have the right to post, but nobody has the duty to read the postings.


Hehe... I've not shed a tear on usenet , nor in FIDO before
it...
I doubt many read my postings, but I post in case someone may.
If they don't wish to read my post because it is readily found as
soon as they open it (on top) that's OK...

I read the posts/threads that interest me, (top or bottom) , I
can't even IMAGINE anyone not reading a post that interests them
just because it is on the top..... but , I guess there are all kinds
here...

>> Remember when we used paper files? The MOST RECENT info was
>>placed on top, and when you file e-mail, the MOST RECENT is at the
>
>that email replies are put on top is due to the sick clients from one
>bigger company.

Medication at the ready.... (I think I will be OK....)
>
>>top... newspapers in the library, MOST RECENT on top...invoices?
>>same.....calendars ? ...same....
>
>and books? you expect the end of each page on top of the page?
>if you want to put an analogy to real life then books or sheets of paper
>are IMNSHO the best.

Nope, never mentioned books, - they are usually a continuous
story by one author, not separate events sequentially written by
separate people.. I would consider books very different from usnet
and a poor comparison as they are intended for a different purpose...
.....
>
>> And now we are supposed to place our MOST RECENT "news"
>>all the way on the BOTTOM????
>
>it is threading. you know? na. probably not.

Guess not, but it still works for me...


Cheers! Thanks for your reply

Dave

[G.R. Patterson III]

Philip Sondericker wrote:
>
> There, I think I've figured it out.

Yay!!!

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
news:9E8uc.15151$4A6.11070@attbi_s52...
> mike (I'm gonna top post forever) regish
>

If he has a Harley I think we can let him top post.

[Martin Hotze]

On Mon, 31 May 2004 01:25:13 GMT, mike regish wrote:

>Wow. What a mess this one is. No caps. Junk left at the bottom. Sig line
>from a relative relic in this thread. My name below your response. Yeesh.

*holycow* .. you sure have absolutely NO idea about usenet, quoting levels,
signatures, sig-separators, etc..
well, score adjusted - it really hurts to see good hardware wasted.

the problem is pointed out: PEBKAC.

#m
--
Martin!!! Maaaaartiiiin!!! Can you please flame this guy for me?
'HECTOP' in rec.aviation.piloting

[Martin Hotze]

On Mon, 31 May 2004 01:34:45 GMT, wrote:

>>and books? you expect the end of each page on top of the page?
>>if you want to put an analogy to real life then books or sheets of paper
>>are IMNSHO the best.
>
> Nope, never mentioned books, - they are usually a continuous
>story by one author, not separate events sequentially written by
>separate people.. I would consider books very different from usnet
>and a poor comparison as they are intended for a different purpose...
>....

what about logbooks? different persons write their stuff in it. you start
it at the last page and the latest news is the first oyu can read?

#m

--
Martin!!! Maaaaartiiiin!!! Can you please flame this guy for me?
'HECTOP' in rec.aviation.piloting

[Peter Gottlieb]

Seconded.

"Tom Ferris" > wrote in message
...

> Show a bit of love and understanding. Save your energy for the more
> important arguments, not netiquette versus the youth of today!

Seconded.

[CV]

mike regish wrote:
> In terms of etiquette, I think it's rude to make me work harder to read a
> message.

A: Because it's more logical and easier to read, of course.
Q: Why ?
A: Absolutely.
Q: Should you write the answer before the text you are commenting ?

CV

[Roger Halstead]

On 29 May 2004 18:38:16 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote:

>>>
>As for the signature thing, this is the first time I've ever
>heard it mentioned by anyone, but I suppose it's no big deal for me to avoid
>quoting them.
><<
>
>A proper sig line begins with dash dash space (see mine). Proper newsreaders
>can be set to filter out everything after a proper sig marker. Thus, anybody
>who quotes something including the sig is liable to have the meat of their post
>chopped off just before it begins.

For gawd's sake no.

If you use a reader like Agent, when you go to respond you see nothing
beyond the sig makr. That means you can not edit anything out beyond
that point.

Throw out that old way of doing things and then you can quote properly
and snip away at your heart's desire.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Jose

[Jens Krueger]

mike regish > wrote:

> And so, as unimportant as my time is, I'm done wasting it on this idiotic
> subject. Suck it up and deal with it.

Done. *plonk*

Cheers,
Jens

--
I don't accept any emails right now. Usenet replys only.

[The Weiss Family]

holy cow!
who knew it would spark such a controversy ;-)


"mike regish" > wrote in message
news:of1uc.8543$3x.8466@attbi_s54...
> Good one...:-)
>
> mike regish
>
> "The Weiss Family" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Now you've got me nervous.
> > What's "top-posting"?
> >
> > "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Richard Hertz" > wrote in message
> > > . net...
> > > > "Hankal" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > He may have been ready to solo, but got the jitters at the last
> > moment.
> > > >
> > > > then he wasn't ready...
> > >
> > > By that logic, any pilot who has an accident wasn't ready to be a
pilot.
> > Or
> > > any Usenet poster who top-posts isn't ready to be a Usenet poster.
> > >
> > > Pete
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[mike regish]

Um...I didn't post that...

mike regish

"The Weiss Family" > wrote in message
...
> holy cow!
> who knew it would spark such a controversy ;-)
>
>
> "mike regish" > wrote in message
> news:of1uc.8543$3x.8466@attbi_s54...
> > Good one...:-)
> >
> > mike regish

[Roger Halstead]

What's this problem about top posting?

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 19:50:57 -0700, "The Weiss Family"
> wrote:

>holy cow!
>who knew it would spark such a controversy ;-)
>
>
>"mike regish" > wrote in message
>news:of1uc.8543$3x.8466@attbi_s54...
>> Good one...:-)
>>
>> mike regish
>>
>> "The Weiss Family" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Now you've got me nervous.
>> > What's "top-posting"?
>> >
>> > "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > > "Richard Hertz" > wrote in message
>> > > . net...
>> > > > "Hankal" > wrote in message
>> > > > ...
>> > > > > He may have been ready to solo, but got the jitters at the last
>> > moment.
>> > > >
>> > > > then he wasn't ready...
>> > >
>> > > By that logic, any pilot who has an accident wasn't ready to be a
>pilot.
>> > Or
>> > > any Usenet poster who top-posts isn't ready to be a Usenet poster.
>> > >
>> > > Pete
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>

[Newps]

This is great, now that I know who is ****ed off about what...


"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
> What's this problem about top posting?

I'll post what makes them mad.

[Tom Sixkiller]

Laed gib eht s'tahw?

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> This is great, now that I know who is ****ed off about what...
>
>
> "Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
> ...
> > What's this problem about top posting?
>
> I'll post what makes them mad.
>
>