"Pearl Harbor" still sucks...

The Aviator (Christopher Reeve)
Memphis Belle

Tuskegee Airmen.

"C. Massey" wrote in message
. com...

Yeah... don't forget the greatest aviation classic of all time...

"Airplane"

Surely you're not serious?

I wonder if he fills out his logs from the bottom up?

Actually, financial records are often kept this way - the most recent at
the top.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Bob Chilcoat" wrote in message
...
I'd have to disagree on that one. While I've never met him myself, a
friend here in NJ who was dying of cancer met him on the set of ER (she
worked for J&J, who supplied a lot of the props for the show -- employees
could visit the set). While she was in there in Hollywood, he arranged
for her and her young daughter to take his limousine to a Hollywood
extravaganza that he wasn't going to attend. They walked up the red
carpet and both had a ball. He wrote and called her regularly before she
died, and sent a HUGE basket of roses to her funeral. He is apparently a
very caring and genuine human being, who just doesn't give a rip about
Hollywood glamour.

Well, he's a nice guy _occasionally_. That doesn't negate his mentality.
Hell, Tookie Williams had people testify what a nice guy HE was.

And, yes, he does love the Hollyweird glamour, and more often than not is
completely full of himself.


"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:B2K3g.8915$ZW3.414@dukeread04...
LOL, sort of like the C in Clooney.

Me too.

Jim Macklin wrote

But I want to see the answer [last post] first.

"Bob Chilcoat" wrote in message
...

I'd have to disagree on that one. While I've never met him myself, a
friend here in NJ who was dying of cancer met him on the set of ER (she
worked for J&J, who supplied a lot of the props for the show -- employees
could visit the set). While she was in there in Hollywood, he arranged
for her and her young daughter to take his limousine to a Hollywood
extravaganza that he wasn't going to attend. They walked up the red
carpet and both had a ball. He wrote and called her regularly before she
died, and sent a HUGE basket of roses to her funeral. He is apparently a
very caring and genuine human being, who just doesn't give a rip about
Hollywood glamour.


It's his politics that are looney.

In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

OE is primarily an email application (based on Outlook). In email, I think,
the idea is to put replies at the top.

Nope. The idea was always bottom (so that people could actually
follow an email chain - after all, we read top down). Somewhere along
the line some idiot decided that users should put the reply at the top.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Exactly [page down]
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
message
link.net...
|
| "Bob Chilcoat" wrote in
message
| ...
|
| I'd have to disagree on that one. While I've never met
him myself, a
| friend here in NJ who was dying of cancer met him on the
set of ER (she
| worked for J&J, who supplied a lot of the props for the
show -- employees
| could visit the set). While she was in there in
Hollywood, he arranged
| for her and her young daughter to take his limousine to
a Hollywood
| extravaganza that he wasn't going to attend. They
walked up the red
| carpet and both had a ball. He wrote and called her
regularly before she
| died, and sent a HUGE basket of roses to her funeral.
He is apparently a
| very caring and genuine human being, who just doesn't
give a rip about
| Hollywood glamour.
|
|
| It's his politics that are looney.
|


Crazy Hollywood looney Clooney.

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 18:26:33 -0500, Jim Macklin wrote:

RPN

I think - given that you're not altering sentence structure, which is
what I believe would be required to shift operators and operands around
- what you mean is that you prefer to see your stacks as true PDLs
(emphasis on the D part). For some written language with which I'm not
familiar, this may be reasonable.

For the few I know (which, to some degree, includes English), it does not.

English is read in an order which includes top-to-bottom. It makes sense,
therefore, to represent chronology the same way. Top-posting forces one
to stray from this convention: Reading some at the top, skipping to the
bottom to read the question, and going back to the top to continue.

That's why you don't see FAQs listed as:

A
Q

A
Q

...

[Well...excluding certain game shows grin.] In normal conversations,
one does not answer to something that has not yet been said.

Bottom-posting comes best into play when one is directing
responses to specific points of the message to which the reply is being
authored. In a sequence of:

Old text
new text
Old text
new text

it is again reasonable - because we're already used to a top-to-bottom
reading order - for the new text to be in response to the old text above.

There's a funny example of how this fails in top-posting at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting

However, there's a constant theme through all these points: that the
author cares about the reader, reducing the costs associated with reading,
understanding, and replying to a message. For authors with no concern for
readers, none of this logic would be applicable. However, those same
authors could achieve the same effect by pounding randomly on their
keyboards.

- Andrew