sf wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:02:27 -0700, Blinky the Shark
> > wrote:
>
>>sf wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'm not justifying anything. Bottom posting sucks because
>>> attributions don't stay with the message body.
>>
>>The do unless someone or someone's software ****s them up. Can't blame
>>inter- or bottom-posting for that.
>
> OK, show me one example here in rfc, including anything from you,
> where the identification stays with the text in a multi quote post.
> At least with consistent top posting that can happen. Bottom posting
> sucks.

First, define what you mean by "the identification stays with the text",
so I don't bother meeting your challenge only to find out that I
*misunderstood* your challenge.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

>>
>>>sf wrote:
>>>> I'm not justifying anything. Bottom posting sucks because
>>>> attributions don't stay with the message body.
>>>
>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:02:27 -0700, Blinky the Shark
>> > wrote:
>>>The do unless someone or someone's software ****s them up. Can't blame
>>>inter- or bottom-posting for that.
>>
>sf wrote:
>> OK, show me one example here in rfc, including anything from you,
>> where the identification stays with the text in a multi quote post.
>> At least with consistent top posting that can happen. Bottom posting
>> sucks.
>
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:47:57 -0700, Blinky the Shark
> wrote:
>First, define what you mean by "the identification stays with the text",
>so I don't bother meeting your challenge only to find out that I
>*misunderstood* your challenge.

Show me something that looks like the above. It happens naturally (in
reverse order, which I prefer also) by top posting.



--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

sf wrote:

>>>>sf wrote:
>>>>> I'm not justifying anything. Bottom posting sucks because
>>>>> attributions don't stay with the message body.
>>>>
>>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:02:27 -0700, Blinky the Shark
>>> > wrote:
>>>>The do unless someone or someone's software ****s them up. Can't blame
>>>>inter- or bottom-posting for that.
>>>
>>sf wrote:
>>> OK, show me one example here in rfc, including anything from you,
>>> where the identification stays with the text in a multi quote post.
>>> At least with consistent top posting that can happen. Bottom posting
>>> sucks.
>>
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:47:57 -0700, Blinky the Shark
> > wrote:
>>First, define what you mean by "the identification stays with the text",
>>so I don't bother meeting your challenge only to find out that I
>>*misunderstood* your challenge.
>
> Show me something that looks like the above. It happens naturally (in
> reverse order, which I prefer also) by top posting.

Okay, I see what you mean. But in your example, of course, there's a
missing attribution - to my last post - at the top, where attribution
belongs, so the chain up there is broken.

No, that's not going to happen with inter- or bottom-posting. I do see
some people manually adding stuff like

Blinky said:

to each block when they bottom-post. What a waste of time.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

On Mon 13 Oct 2008 09:28:39p, Blinky the Shark told us...

> Okay, I see what you mean. But in your example, of course, there's a
> missing attribution - to my last post - at the top, where attribution
> belongs, so the chain up there is broken.
>
> No, that's not going to happen with inter- or bottom-posting. I do see
> some people manually adding stuff like
>
> Blinky said:
>
> to each block when they bottom-post. What a waste of time.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you just said, the newsreader can easily
and automatically add the "Blinky said:" or other lead-in to the
attribution. It takes no time for the poster once the verbage is set up.
I'm sure you know that from Xnews.

When I remember to "snip" (LOL), I try to capture the appropriate attrib
for the quote. Sometimes it's messy when there seems to be a need to quote
more than one poster for the sake of continuity and someone else has
screwed up all the attribs at the top.

I've quite gotten used to bottom posting, though at one time I thought top
posting was more appropriate, as it is in e-mail. Depending on the
circustances, and hopefully clarifying responses to a longer post, I also
like inter-posting, but I usually do that only when replying to a single
poster's quote.

Honestly, it wouldn't matter to me in the least whether top or bottom
posting was used as long as it was consistent. It's the inconsistency that
I find frustrating.

--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)

*******************************************
Date: Monday, 10(X)/13(XIII)/08(MMVIII)
*******************************************
Today is: Columbus Day, Thanksgiving Day (Canada)
Countdown till Veteran's Day
4wks 2hrs 27mins
*******************************************
Most people work just hard enough not

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:28:39 -0700, Blinky the Shark
> wrote:

>sf wrote:
>
>>>>>sf wrote:
>>>>>> I'm not justifying anything. Bottom posting sucks because
>>>>>> attributions don't stay with the message body.
>>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:02:27 -0700, Blinky the Shark
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>The do unless someone or someone's software ****s them up. Can't blame
>>>>>inter- or bottom-posting for that.
>>>>
>>>sf wrote:
>>>> OK, show me one example here in rfc, including anything from you,
>>>> where the identification stays with the text in a multi quote post.
>>>> At least with consistent top posting that can happen. Bottom posting
>>>> sucks.
>>>
>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:47:57 -0700, Blinky the Shark
>> > wrote:
>>>First, define what you mean by "the identification stays with the text",
>>>so I don't bother meeting your challenge only to find out that I
>>>*misunderstood* your challenge.
>>
>> Show me something that looks like the above. It happens naturally (in
>> reverse order, which I prefer also) by top posting.
>
>Okay, I see what you mean. But in your example, of course, there's a
>missing attribution - to my last post - at the top, where attribution
>belongs, so the chain up there is broken.
>
>No, that's not going to happen with inter- or bottom-posting. I do see
>some people manually adding stuff like
>
>Blinky said:
>
>to each block when they bottom-post. What a waste of time.

In that case, bottom posting doesn't work. Top posting is the best
option.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 04:41:43 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

>I've quite gotten used to bottom posting, though at one time I thought top
>posting was more appropriate, as it is in e-mail.

Bottom posting makes no sense.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Mon 13 Oct 2008 09:54:58p, sf told us...

> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 04:41:43 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> > wrote:
>
>>I've quite gotten used to bottom posting, though at one time I thought top
>>posting was more appropriate, as it is in e-mail.
>
> Bottom posting makes no sense.

I don't disagree with that. As I said, I've gotten used to bottom posting,
not that I prefer it.

--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)

*******************************************
Date: Monday, 10(X)/13(XIII)/08(MMVIII)
*******************************************
Today is: Columbus Day, Thanksgiving Day (Canada)
Countdown till Veteran's Day
4wks 1hrs 46mins
*******************************************
If this is paradise, I wish I had a

sf wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:28:39 -0700, Blinky the Shark
> > wrote:
>
>>sf wrote:
>>
>>>>>>sf wrote:
>>>>>>> I'm not justifying anything. Bottom posting sucks because
>>>>>>> attributions don't stay with the message body.
>>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:02:27 -0700, Blinky the Shark
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>The do unless someone or someone's software ****s them up. Can't blame
>>>>>>inter- or bottom-posting for that.
>>>>>
>>>>sf wrote:
>>>>> OK, show me one example here in rfc, including anything from you,
>>>>> where the identification stays with the text in a multi quote post.
>>>>> At least with consistent top posting that can happen. Bottom posting
>>>>> sucks.
>>>>
>>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:47:57 -0700, Blinky the Shark
>>> > wrote:
>>>>First, define what you mean by "the identification stays with the text",
>>>>so I don't bother meeting your challenge only to find out that I
>>>>*misunderstood* your challenge.
>>>
>>> Show me something that looks like the above. It happens naturally (in
>>> reverse order, which I prefer also) by top posting.
>>
>>Okay, I see what you mean. But in your example, of course, there's a
>>missing attribution - to my last post - at the top, where attribution
>>belongs, so the chain up there is broken.
>>
>>No, that's not going to happen with inter- or bottom-posting. I do see
>>some people manually adding stuff like
>>
>>Blinky said:
>>
>>to each block when they bottom-post. What a waste of time.
>
> In that case, bottom posting doesn't work. Top posting is the best
> option.

No, in that case inter- or bottom-posting is the best option, along with
learning how to deal with conventional attributions.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

sf wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 04:41:43 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> > wrote:
>
> > I've quite gotten used to bottom posting, though at one time I
> > thought top posting was more appropriate, as it is in e-mail.
>
> Bottom posting makes no sense.

Bullshit and lies.



Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

sf wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:28:39 -0700, Blinky the Shark
> > wrote:
>
> > sf wrote:
> >
> > > > > > sf wrote:
> >>>>>> I'm not justifying anything. Bottom posting sucks because
> >>>>>> attributions don't stay with the message body.
> > > > > >
> >>>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:02:27 -0700, Blinky the Shark
> >>>> > wrote:
> > > > > > The do unless someone or someone's software ****s them up.
> > > > > > Can't blame inter- or bottom-posting for that.
> >>>>
> > > > sf wrote:
> >>>> OK, show me one example here in rfc, including anything from you,
> >>>> where the identification stays with the text in a multi quote
> post. >>>> At least with consistent top posting that can happen.
> Bottom posting >>>> sucks.
> > > >
> >> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:47:57 -0700, Blinky the Shark
> >> > wrote:
> > > > First, define what you mean by "the identification stays with
> > > > the text", so I don't bother meeting your challenge only to
> > > > find out that I *misunderstood* your challenge.
> >>
> >> Show me something that looks like the above. It happens naturally
> (in >> reverse order, which I prefer also) by top posting.
> >
> > Okay, I see what you mean. But in your example, of course, there's
> > a missing attribution - to my last post - at the top, where
> > attribution belongs, so the chain up there is broken.
> >
> > No, that's not going to happen with inter- or bottom-posting. I do
> > see some people manually adding stuff like
> >
> > Blinky said:
> >
> > to each block when they bottom-post. What a waste of time.
>
> In that case, bottom posting doesn't work. Top posting is the best
> option.

Bullshit and lies.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Wayne Boatwright wrote:

> On Mon 13 Oct 2008 09:28:39p, Blinky the Shark told us...
>
>> Okay, I see what you mean. But in your example, of course, there's a
>> missing attribution - to my last post - at the top, where attribution
>> belongs, so the chain up there is broken.
>>
>> No, that's not going to happen with inter- or bottom-posting. I do see
>> some people manually adding stuff like
>>
>> Blinky said:
>>
>> to each block when they bottom-post. What a waste of time.
>
> Unless I'm misunderstanding what you just said, the newsreader can easily
> and automatically add the "Blinky said:" or other lead-in to the

Well, of COURSE it can. But not the way she wants it to. Read on.

> attribution. It takes no time for the poster once the verbage is set
> up. I'm sure you know that from Xnews.

You are indeed misunderstanding. She wants *each block of text*
*throughout the message* to have an indvidually prepended an attribution
like I will do manually for the rest of this reply...

Wayne Boatwright said:

> When I remember to "snip" (LOL), I try to capture the appropriate attrib
> for the quote. Sometimes it's messy when there seems to be a need to
> quote more than one poster for the sake of continuity and someone else
> has screwed up all the attribs at the top.

NOT the normal top-attributions that our news clients do if configured
properly.

Wayne Boatwright said:

> I've quite gotten used to bottom posting, though at one time I thought
> top posting was more appropriate, as it is in e-mail. Depending on the

It sucks in email, as well. It have no problems with it for languages
that are read from bottom to top, but that's not English.

Wayne Boatwright said:

> circustances, and hopefully clarifying responses to a longer post, I
> also like inter-posting, but I usually do that only when replying to a
> single poster's quote.
>
> Honestly, it wouldn't matter to me in the least whether top or bottom
> posting was used as long as it was consistent. It's the inconsistency
> that I find frustrating.

I usually don't respond to top posters, because *I* will not top post and
I agree that the inconsistency they introduce sucks.

http://blinkynet.net/comp/toppost.html


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

sf wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 04:41:43 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> > wrote:
>
>>I've quite gotten used to bottom posting, though at one time I thought top
>>posting was more appropriate, as it is in e-mail.
>
> Bottom posting makes no sense.

Exactly -- the same way Chapter Three following Chapter Two makes no sense.

Because this isn't "Jeopardy".
Why?
On top.
What's the laziest and least logical way to post?


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

On Tue 14 Oct 2008 12:07:56a, Blinky the Shark told us...

> You are indeed misunderstanding. She wants *each block of text*
> *throughout the message* to have an indvidually prepended an attribution
> like I will do manually for the rest of this reply...

Yes, I did indeed misunderstand.

> It sucks in email, as well. It have no problems with it for languages
> that are read from bottom to top, but that's not English.

As far as e-mail, I disagree. Since the inception of intra-company e-mail,
it has been a common and expected practice to top post when replying. For
example, back in the early 1980s when e-mail was introduced nationally
within the Bell System, instructions to top post when replying to an e-
mail were explicitly given to employees. I know this was common in other
large companies as well.


--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)

*******************************************
Date: Tuesday, 10(X)/14(XIV)/08(MMVIII)
*******************************************
Countdown till Veteran's Day
3wks 6dys 19hrs 15mins
*******************************************
Can I yell 'movie' in a crowded firehouse?
*******************************************

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Tue 14 Oct 2008 12:07:56a, Blinky the Shark told us...
>
>> You are indeed misunderstanding. She wants *each block of text*
>> *throughout the message* to have an indvidually prepended an
>> attribution like I will do manually for the rest of this reply...
>
> Yes, I did indeed misunderstand.

It's ridiculous. I imagine it's tough to read a book if one has
that much trouble following along.

>> It sucks in email, as well. It have no problems with it for
>> languages that are read from bottom to top, but that's not English.
>
> As far as e-mail, I disagree. Since the inception of intra-company
> e-mail, it has been a common and expected practice to top post when
> replying.

That's work. I wouldn't expect it or like it in personal email.

nancy

Nancy wrote on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:38:18 -0400:

> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>> On Tue 14 Oct 2008 12:07:56a, Blinky the Shark told us...
>>
>>> You are indeed misunderstanding. She wants *each block of
>>> text* *throughout the message* to have an indvidually
>>> prepended an attribution like I will do manually for the
>>> rest of this reply...
>>
>> Yes, I did indeed misunderstand.

> It's ridiculous. I imagine it's tough to read a book if one
> has that much trouble following along.

>>> It sucks in email, as well. It have no problems with it for
>>> languages that are read from bottom to top, but that's not
>>> English.
>>
>> As far as e-mail, I disagree. Since the inception of
>> intra-company e-mail, it has been a common and expected
>> practice to top post when replying.

> That's work. I wouldn't expect it or like it in personal
> email.

There's a difference since work email is often an immediate personal
answer to a question. In a newsgroup, the reply may appear later in time
and others who may be able to contribute need to find out about it.

It's interesting that the original topic was catfish which are bottom
feeders!

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:09:01 -0700, Blinky the Shark
> wrote:

>I wonder if basa distribution is regional or perhaps just randomly spotty.
>I may have written about it first in here, several months ago, I'd say,
>when I think I discovered it. I've never *not* seen it available since.
>(I don't know how long it may have been around before I noticed it.)

I usually just see it at the smaller and ethnic type stores.

Lou

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:46:44 -0700, sf wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:48:41 GMT, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 11:01:24 -0700, sf wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Which is only one more reason why I hate bottom posting. Most people
>>> have no idea how to tell who said what in a long thread and just
>>> strip. If the culture here was to top post, then the correct
>>> attributions would stay with comments and nobody would need to
>>> complain.
>>
>>that some people fail to trim properly is not a justification for
>>top-posting.
>>
>
> I'm not justifying anything. Bottom posting sucks because
> attributions don't stay with the message body.

they do if you're a competent poster.

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:54:04 GMT, Wayne Boatwright wrote:

> On Tue 14 Oct 2008 12:07:56a, Blinky the Shark told us...
>
>> You are indeed misunderstanding. She wants *each block of text*
>> *throughout the message* to have an indvidually prepended an attribution
>> like I will do manually for the rest of this reply...
>
> Yes, I did indeed misunderstand.
>
>> It sucks in email, as well. It have no problems with it for languages
>> that are read from bottom to top, but that's not English.
>
> As far as e-mail, I disagree. Since the inception of intra-company e-mail,
> it has been a common and expected practice to top post when replying. For
> example, back in the early 1980s when e-mail was introduced nationally
> within the Bell System, instructions to top post when replying to an e-
> mail were explicitly given to employees. I know this was common in other
> large companies as well.

but usenet is not business e-mail.

your pal,
blake

James Silverton wrote:

> Nancy wrote on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:38:18 -0400:
>
> > Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> >> On Tue 14 Oct 2008 12:07:56a, Blinky the Shark told us...
> >>
> >>> You are indeed misunderstanding. She wants *each block of
> >>> text* *throughout the message* to have an indvidually
> >>> prepended an attribution like I will do manually for the
> >>> rest of this reply...
> >>
> >> Yes, I did indeed misunderstand.
>
> > It's ridiculous. I imagine it's tough to read a book if one
> > has that much trouble following along.
>
> >>> It sucks in email, as well. It have no problems with it for
> >>> languages that are read from bottom to top, but that's not
> >>> English.
> >>
> >> As far as e-mail, I disagree. Since the inception of
> >> intra-company e-mail, it has been a common and expected
> >> practice to top post when replying.
>
> > That's work. I wouldn't expect it or like it in personal
> > email.
>
> There's a difference since work email is often an immediate personal
> answer to a question. In a newsgroup, the reply may appear later in time
> and others who may be able to contribute need to find out about it.
>
> It's interesting that the original topic was catfish which are bottom
> feeders!


Lol...

:-)


--
Best
Greg

On Tue 14 Oct 2008 07:28:41a, James Silverton told us...

> Nancy wrote on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:38:18 -0400:
>
>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>> On Tue 14 Oct 2008 12:07:56a, Blinky the Shark told us...
>>>
>>>> You are indeed misunderstanding. She wants *each block of
>>>> text* *throughout the message* to have an indvidually
>>>> prepended an attribution like I will do manually for the
>>>> rest of this reply...
>>>
>>> Yes, I did indeed misunderstand.
>
>> It's ridiculous. I imagine it's tough to read a book if one
>> has that much trouble following along.
>
>>>> It sucks in email, as well. It have no problems with it for
>>>> languages that are read from bottom to top, but that's not
>>>> English.
>>>
>>> As far as e-mail, I disagree. Since the inception of
>>> intra-company e-mail, it has been a common and expected
>>> practice to top post when replying.
>
>> That's work. I wouldn't expect it or like it in personal
>> email.
>
> There's a difference since work email is often an immediate personal
> answer to a question. In a newsgroup, the reply may appear later in time
> and others who may be able to contribute need to find out about it.

Oh, I wasn't suggesting that because work email is usually top posted that
this should also follow in newsgroups, only pointing out the difference.
Some feel that e-maiil should also be bottom posted. That is what I
disagree with, in business at least. At work, depending on the content of
the e-mail I receive, I either top post or inter-post if responding to
numerous paragraphs.

> It's interesting that the original topic was catfish which are bottom
> feeders!
>
<G>


--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)

*******************************************
Date: Tuesday, 10(X)/14(XIV)/08(MMVIII)
*******************************************
Countdown till Veteran's Day
3wks 6dys 15hrs 24mins
*******************************************
'Now cut that out!!' - Jack Benny
*******************************************

On Tue 14 Oct 2008 08:16:57a, blake murphy told us...

> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:54:04 GMT, Wayne Boatwright wrote:

>> As far as e-mail, I disagree. Since the inception of intra-company
>> e-mail, it has been a common and expected practice to top post when
>> replying. For example, back in the early 1980s when e-mail was
>> introduced nationally within the Bell System, instructions to top post
>> when replying to an e- mail were explicitly given to employees. I know
>> this was common in other large companies as well.
>
> but usenet is not business e-mail.

I wasn't suggesting that it was, nor that it should be treated the same,
nor that the same rules apply. I was only drawing a comparison.

> your pal,
> blake
>



--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)

*******************************************
Date: Tuesday, 10(X)/14(XIV)/08(MMVIII)
*******************************************
Countdown till Veteran's Day
3wks 6dys 15hrs 20mins
*******************************************
Be careful when you're playing under
the anvil tree.

Wayne Boatwright wrote:

> Oh, I wasn't suggesting that because work email is usually top posted
> that this should also follow in newsgroups, only pointing out the
> difference. Some feel that e-maiil should also be bottom posted.
> That is what I disagree with, in business at least. At work,
> depending on the content of the e-mail I receive, I either top post
> or inter-post if responding to numerous paragraphs.

At work, you need the emails to stay intact to make sure there
are no ambiguities, who said they would do what and why and
how, you don't want any clever snipping. I can understand the
top posting business for work purposes.

Otherwise it makes no sense, 99.99% of the time.

nancy

Wayne Boatwright wrote:

> On Tue 14 Oct 2008 12:07:56a, Blinky the Shark told us...
>
>> You are indeed misunderstanding. She wants *each block of text*
>> *throughout the message* to have an indvidually prepended an attribution
>> like I will do manually for the rest of this reply...
>
> Yes, I did indeed misunderstand.
>
>> It sucks in email, as well. It have no problems with it for languages
>> that are read from bottom to top, but that's not English.
>
> As far as e-mail, I disagree. Since the inception of intra-company e-mail,
> it has been a common and expected practice to top post when replying.

Yes, I realize that corporate email users are lazy.

> For example, back in the early 1980s when e-mail was introduced nationally
> within the Bell System, instructions to top post when replying to an e-
> mail were explicitly given to employees. I know this was common in other
> large companies as well.

Yes, I know the corporate rules-makers are lazy.

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

Lou Decruss wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:09:01 -0700, Blinky the Shark
> > wrote:
>
>>I wonder if basa distribution is regional or perhaps just randomly
>>spotty. I may have written about it first in here, several months ago,
>>I'd say, when I think I discovered it. I've never *not* seen it
>>available since. (I don't know how long it may have been around before I
>>noticed it.)
>
> I usually just see it at the smaller and ethnic type stores.

For the record, the above refers to my normal mainstream chain supermarket
(Ralph's).


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

blake murphy wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:46:44 -0700, sf wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:48:41 GMT, blake murphy
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 11:01:24 -0700, sf wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which is only one more reason why I hate bottom posting. Most people
>>>> have no idea how to tell who said what in a long thread and just
>>>> strip. If the culture here was to top post, then the correct
>>>> attributions would stay with comments and nobody would need to
>>>> complain.
>>>
>>>that some people fail to trim properly is not a justification for
>>>top-posting.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not justifying anything. Bottom posting sucks because
>> attributions don't stay with the message body.
>
> they do if you're a competent poster.

Not the way she want's them, blake. She wants something like

Blinky said:

to appear before every block of text, whenever the writer changes,
throughout the whole post. Not the normal attributions at the top,
which tell you who wrote each big of text. Some people - rare, they are -
do that by hand. Much ado about nothing, they're into.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

Lou Decruss wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:09:01 -0700, Blinky the Shark
> > wrote:
>
> >I wonder if basa distribution is regional or perhaps just randomly
spotty.
> >I may have written about it first in here, several months ago, I'd say,
> >when I think I discovered it. I've never *not* seen it available since.
> >(I don't know how long it may have been around before I noticed it.)
>
> I usually just see it at the smaller and ethnic type stores.

I'll have to check it out next time I go up to the Asian places around
Argyle St. in Chicago...

Since Blinky initially mentioned it I'll have to concoct a basa dish called
"Basa a la Blinky"...

;-)


--
Best
Greg

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 15:37:03 -0500, "Gregory Morrow"
> wrote:

>
>Lou Decruss wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:09:01 -0700, Blinky the Shark
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >I wonder if basa distribution is regional or perhaps just randomly
>spotty.
>> >I may have written about it first in here, several months ago, I'd say,
>> >when I think I discovered it. I've never *not* seen it available since.
>> >(I don't know how long it may have been around before I noticed it.)
>>
>> I usually just see it at the smaller and ethnic type stores.
>
>I'll have to check it out next time I go up to the Asian places around
>Argyle St. in Chicago...

We shop mainly in the burbs. Valli produce has it this week for
$2.99. But without driving you'll be SOL. Good luck though.

http://www.valliproduce.com/do/viewAd?id=2&pageId=3

>Since Blinky initially mentioned it I'll have to concoct a basa dish called
>"Basa a la Blinky"...

Or you could make Blinky po-boys.

Lou
----------------------

Blinky Po-Boy's


Prepare a batch of Aioli. The man who served me added a teaspoon on
prepared horseradish to the end product. I highly recommend this.

aioli Gourmet | September 2002

Active time: 10 min Start to finish: 10 min

Makes about 1/2 cup.

chef Jody Adams
ingredients
2 garlic cloves
1 large egg yolk
2 teaspoons fresh lemon juice
1/2 teaspoon Dijon mustard
1/4 cup extra-virgin olive oil
3 tablespoons vegetable oil
preparation
Mince and mash garlic to a paste with a pinch of salt using a large
heavy knife. Whisk together yolk, lemon juice, and mustard in a bowl.
Combine oils and add, a few drops at a time, to yolk mixture, whisking
constantly, until all oil is incorporated and mixture is emulsified.
(If mixture separates, stop adding oil and continue whisking until
mixture comes together, then resume adding oil.)

Whisk in garlic paste and season with salt and pepper. If aïoli is too
thick, whisk in 1 or 2 drops of water. Chill, covered, until ready to
use.

Cooks' notes:
• The egg yolk in this recipe is not cooked, which may be of concern
if there is a problem with salmonella in your area.
• Aïoli can be chilled up to 2 days.



Catfish Po-boy's

From he

http://www.recipezaar.com/91450

35 min | 30 min prep

SERVES 4

* 1 lb catfish fillet
* 2 tablespoons olive oil
* 1 tablespoon garlic powder
* 1 tablespoon onion powder
* 1/2 teaspoon salt
* 1 teaspoon white pepper
* 1 teaspoon black pepper
* 1 teaspoon cayenne pepper
* 2 teaspoons thyme
* 1 teaspoon paprika
* 1 teaspoon oregano

1. Place the fish fillets in a large bowl and drizzle olive oil over
them, let stand for 30 minutes.
2. Combine spices in a 9-inch pie plate.
3. Heat a cast iron skillet upside down over high heat for 5 to 10
minutes or until very hot.
4. Turn on vent fan during cooking to eliminate smoke.
5. Using a hot pad, turn pan right side up.
6. Remove fish fillets from oil and drain.
7. Dip each fillet into seasonings and coat each side evenly.
8. Put fillets in hot skillet and cook 2 to 3 minutes per side,
turning only once.

Cut french bread in portion sizes. Slice in half and hollow out a bit
if you prefer. Spread both halves with aioli. Top bottom with
catfish and top that with Chicago style giardiniera to taste.

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 05:15:12 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

>On Mon 13 Oct 2008 09:54:58p, sf told us...
>
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 04:41:43 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>I've quite gotten used to bottom posting, though at one time I thought top
>>>posting was more appropriate, as it is in e-mail.
>>
>> Bottom posting makes no sense.
>
>I don't disagree with that. As I said, I've gotten used to bottom posting,
>not that I prefer it.

That best describes my situation too.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On 14 Oct 2008 07:00:39 GMT, "Default User" >
wrote:

>sf wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 04:41:43 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > I've quite gotten used to bottom posting, though at one time I
>> > thought top posting was more appropriate, as it is in e-mail.
>>
>> Bottom posting makes no sense.
>
>Bullshit and lies.
>
Why don't you and Sheldon go chat among yourselves?


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:10:26 -0700, Blinky the Shark
> wrote:

>sf wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 04:41:43 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>I've quite gotten used to bottom posting, though at one time I thought top
>>>posting was more appropriate, as it is in e-mail.
>>
>> Bottom posting makes no sense.
>
>Exactly -- the same way Chapter Three following Chapter Two makes no sense.
>
>Because this isn't "Jeopardy".
>Why?
>On top.
>What's the laziest and least logical way to post?

It's the most efficient and least confusing way to post.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:54:04 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

>As far as e-mail, I disagree. Since the inception of intra-company e-mail,
>it has been a common and expected practice to top post when replying. For
>example, back in the early 1980s when e-mail was introduced nationally
>within the Bell System, instructions to top post when replying to an e-
>mail were explicitly given to employees. I know this was common in other
>large companies as well.

Because nobody wants to plow through old comments to find the new
ones. If they're new to the thread, then *they* should be the ones
reading it in reverse order.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:28:41 GMT, "James Silverton"
> wrote:

>It's interesting that the original topic was catfish which are bottom
>feeders!

Oh, you're a smooth one James! LOL


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On 14 Oct 2008 07:00:56 GMT, "Default User" >
wrote:
>
>Bullshit and lies.
>
Why don't you just make that your sig line?


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 15:13:35 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:46:44 -0700, sf wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>> I'm not justifying anything. Bottom posting sucks because
>> attributions don't stay with the message body.
>
>they do if you're a competent poster.
>

Sorry, Bro but even the best F up occasionally with a long post
containing many <snipped> replies and it's particularly hard replying
to a post that has been mangled, especially when the previous posts
have been deleted. It's OBVIOUS when there's a mistake, but someone
will invariably post an "I didn't say that". Which type of post is
worse is a toss up for me.

Most people simply don't know how to justify the number of > next to
the author with the number of > next to the quoted text. Pay
attention! Author has one less than quoted text, folks.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:56:04 -0700, Blinky the Shark
> wrote:

>Yes, I know the corporate rules-makers are lazy.

and I've finally realized how arrogant you are.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

sf wrote:

> On 14 Oct 2008 07:00:39 GMT, "Default User" >
> wrote:
>
> > sf wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 04:41:43 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > I've quite gotten used to bottom posting, though at one time I
> >> > thought top posting was more appropriate, as it is in e-mail.
> >>
> >> Bottom posting makes no sense.
> >
> > Bullshit and lies.
> >
> Why don't you and Sheldon go chat among yourselves?

Can't handle the truth? The truth is that the current style became
established for a damn good reason. It's the most sensible and easiest
to follow. You're too damn stupid to figure out that millions of usenet
veterans Just Might Be Right.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

sf wrote:


> Because nobody wants to plow through old comments to find the new
> ones. If they're new to the thread, then they should be the ones
> reading it in reverse order.

More bullshit and lies. You don't have to plow through properly trimmed
and relevant comments in the regular style. With top-posting, all but
the first couple become irrelevant, because it's damn near impossible
to follow them, but they dragged along forever and a day.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

On 15 Oct 2008 16:28:29 GMT, "Default User" >
wrote:

>sf wrote:
>
>> On 14 Oct 2008 07:00:39 GMT, "Default User" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > sf wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 04:41:43 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I've quite gotten used to bottom posting, though at one time I
>> >> > thought top posting was more appropriate, as it is in e-mail.
>> >>
>> >> Bottom posting makes no sense.
>> >
>> > Bullshit and lies.
>> >
>> Why don't you and Sheldon go chat among yourselves?
>
>Can't handle the truth? The truth is that the current style became
>established for a damn good reason. It's the most sensible and easiest
>to follow. You're too damn stupid to figure out that millions of usenet
>veterans Just Might Be Right.
>
Your eyes are the color of bullshit.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On 15 Oct 2008 16:30:08 GMT, "Default User" >
wrote:

>sf wrote:
>
>
>> Because nobody wants to plow through old comments to find the new
>> ones. If they're new to the thread, then they should be the ones
>> reading it in reverse order.
>
>More bullshit and lies. You don't have to plow through properly trimmed
>and relevant comments in the regular style. With top-posting, all but
>the first couple become irrelevant, because it's damn near impossible
>to follow them, but they dragged along forever and a day.
>
Bass Akwards once again. Most of the included text is pure
unnecessary crap when people bottom post, so if they top posted nobody
would ever notice they didn't snip.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Wed 15 Oct 2008 06:28:17p, sf told us...

> On 15 Oct 2008 16:28:29 GMT, "Default User" >
> wrote:
>
>>sf wrote:
>>
>>> On 14 Oct 2008 07:00:39 GMT, "Default User" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > sf wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 04:41:43 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > I've quite gotten used to bottom posting, though at one time I
>>> >> > thought top posting was more appropriate, as it is in e-mail.
>>> >>
>>> >> Bottom posting makes no sense.
>>> >
>>> > Bullshit and lies.
>>> >
>>> Why don't you and Sheldon go chat among yourselves?
>>
>>Can't handle the truth? The truth is that the current style became
>>established for a damn good reason. It's the most sensible and easiest
>>to follow. You're too damn stupid to figure out that millions of usenet
>>veterans Just Might Be Right.
>>
> Your eyes are the color of bullshit.

Isn't there a 1950s song, "Beautiful Beautiful Brown Eyes"? :-)

--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)

*******************************************
Date: Wednesday, 10(X)/15(XV)/08(MMVIII)
*******************************************
Countdown till Veteran's Day
3wks 5dys 4hrs 43mins
*******************************************
Excuse me, but did I say that? Doesn't
sound like me...