On 2006-03-29, prodigal1 <prodig@l1.com> wrote:
> Martin Gagnon wrote:
>> On 2006-03-29, Ronald McDonald (the MS clown) wrote:
>
>> That's why *all* that thread is useless... It's should never begin..
>
> Martin!
> C'est inutile. Il ne cessera jamais ces âneries. Savez-vous la
> proverbe anglaise qui nous dit du village qui manque son imbécile? On
> l'a trouvé là! ;-)

On peut toujours essayer, j'ai toujours été un peu idéaliste... Et
normalement.. les idiots du villages ne sont pas si verbomoteur ! Où
devrais-je dire "claviomoteur"... C'est plus cela qui est dérangeant..

Bonsoir..

--
Martin

Ronald Matthews wrote:
> Martin Gagnon <mrtn@yn.n.spm.org> trolled:
>
>
>>That's why *all* that thread is useless... It's should never begin..
>
>
>>Who's the no life who pass his whole day to read linux newsgroup
>>and don't stop to disturb everybody with your stupidity.. Go on a
>>M$ newsgroup and do you "Microsft is soo good" intellectual
>>masturbation with people that *want* to talk about Microsoft.. And
>>if you See a Linux zealot (like you love to call them) on the M$
>>newsgroup who don't stop to glorify linux and spit on windows..
>>(like you do here for linux), That's the time to start your stupid
>>flaming !!!
>
>
> Sorry, but you've got the wrong guy. We use linux much more than we
> use windows. We like linux. And since we like linux, we are
> interested in how it compares to other OS.

So are the rest of us here.

> And since we like linux, we are ready to discuss its faults and we admit that
> it is not perfect. And if we can't discuss linux faults in a linux
newsgroup,
> then we can't discuss linux faults anywhere. And that is how linux
> zealots, like you, would like it, isn't it?

Well... yeah, but with a somewhat different attitude.
Actually, this may be the first time I've seen you writing something
non-offensive. Not that difficult, is it?
If you can keep it going that way, all might be happy.

I mosth kindlieth askth: Can thee Sire?

I've said it before, and will repeat it once again:
I /know/ you have a lot of experience. It's time you put that experience
to use here, instead of verbalizing excrimentals squarily and unfairly.

> Linux is perfect, isn't it?

Nope. No OS are:

The Right Tool for the Right Job.
Credit where credit is due, criticism where critisism is due.

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

Ronald Matthews wrote:
> Three cheers for Sean Hannity!

Figured...

> You should always use the best application for the job you have to
> do. And if that application demands the use of Windoze, then
> Windoze is what you should use.

I never said anything to the contrary. I actually got my folks a Mac because
that was the best tool for them. What I said was if someone is asking for
advice on which *Linux* app to use, saying "just use windows" is dumb. But
then apparently so are you...

> And top-posted, to boot.

Funny... its not top posted on *my* reader. The headers all look right to
me, and my reader shows it as part of a thread. (Maybe you're not using the
"best application" for the job of news reading?) Just because your crappy
news reader looks at message *subjects* and not the proper reference fields
doesn't make me a top-poster. Though it may make you a bottom feeder.

Enjoy the moss on the underside of the bridge, ya troll.

Craig Woodward <woody@roncohsepsatmer.rr.com> trolled:

> Funny... its not top posted on *my* reader. The headers all look
> right to me, and my reader shows it as part of a thread. (Maybe
> you're not using the "best application" for the job of news
> reading?) Just because your crappy news reader looks at message

Crappy newsreader? _You're_ using mozilla to read news!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

> *subjects* and not the proper reference fields doesn't make me a
> top-poster. Though it may make you a bottom feeder.

It's not top-posted on your newsreader because you don't have your
newsreader set to sort on date and time. That's the way the pros do
it.

In fact, if you had sorted your messages by date and time you might
have noticed that the message you are responding to is weeks old.

Sorting by thread is the legacy of MSOE, which apparently, you
are the most comfortable with. Mozilla is similar, although for
your sake, it's too bad that MS won't port MSOE to linux...

> Enjoy the moss on the underside of the bridge, ya troll.

It's truly comical seeing an inconsequential newbie like you calling
us a "troll."

cordially, as always,

rm

ummmmm, Thread sorting of usenet news articles predates the existence
of MSOE, so it can hardly be a legacy of MSOE.

Most newreaders can do both thread and date/time sorting, both have
their place. I hardly see why anyone would care how someone else
likes their news sorted though.

rwwff@yahoo.com <rwwff@yahoo.com> trolled:
> ummmmm, Thread sorting of usenet news articles predates the existence
> of MSOE, so it can hardly be a legacy of MSOE.

> Most newreaders can do both thread and date/time sorting, both
> have their place. I hardly see why anyone would care how someone
> else likes their news sorted though.

Those who sort their messages by thread have the previous messages
of that thread fresh in their minds, so they think nothing of
top-posting, or posting without any context whatsoever.

When someone who sorts by date and time read these top-posted
messages or messages posted without context, the thread is not fresh
in their minds (because the messages aren't sorted by thread) so
they don't know what the hell is going on.

Top-posters and posters without context virtually always sort their
messages by thread. That is why the distinction is important.

MSOE has nothing to do with anything that we can see. But since you
posted without context, and this thread is not fresh in our mind, we
don't know what the hell you are talking about when you bring up
MSOE.

Take that as a hint.

cordially, as always,

rm