blake wrote about Kent:

>> Lee has a valid reason for top posting.
>>
>> You, OTOH, have no valid reason for being an asshole.
>>
>> Boron
>
> but, but...he likes it!

I doubt that he does. He just doesn't know how to be anything else.

Bob

On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 19:14:35 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:

> sf wrote:
>
> > It only screws up the thread when someone who doesn't snip properly,
> > can't read reply markers or uses a news reader that doesn't insert
> > reply markers participates in it.
>
> If I'm replying to Lee, I quote what Lee wrote and post below it. If (for
> some reason) I needed to include part of the message to which Lee was
> replying, I would cut out Lee's portion and paste it below that message so
> that it's easy to follow the conversation. That's simply being considerate
> to the readers. It's only a few seconds' work.
>
I wasn't thinking about you, Bob.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 20:00:07 -0400, Boron Elgar
> wrote:

> One of the reasons that Usenet is dying is that it is
> filled with get-off-my-lawn geezers and stick-in-the mud rule
> sticklers.

Of which, rfc has more than just a few - and they are mean.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 19:35:34 -0400, Cheryl >
wrote:

> On 7/5/2011 12:03 AM, sf wrote:
>
> > But a decent oven doesn't heat up the house or even the kitchen. When
> > it's hot, I choose to use an oven and not the cooktop because oven
> > cooking keeps the room cooler.
>
> If that's true, all the more reason for me to hurry up and upgrade. I
> don't have a decent oven. It's electric (whoa, Electric Slide flashback
> for a second there ... ok, I'm back) and radiates a lot of heat from the
> top and the front while it's on. Opening the door to check on things
> (note for Kent - don't do that when cooking YP) my little kitchen gets
> really really hot. Since the kitchen is small, it heats up the other
> rooms just as quickly.

I have electric - (self-cleaning) wall ovens, not a single unit stove.
A big part of the reason they don't radiate heat is because they are
self-cleaning which means extra insulation. The interior "exhaust"
doesn't raise the heat in my kitchen noticeably, so I just can't
relate to people complaining about their ovens and heat unless the
door is wide open. HOWEVER, since I converted my cooktop to gas...
OMG, that is total heat waste. I was so shocked by how it heats up
the kitchen, I looked up the subject and gas burners waste 75% of
their heat. It's a good thing natural gas is so cheap and I need to
heat the house most of the time anyway.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

Sqwertz > wrote:

>Lee is the only one here who consistently top posts unnecessarily.

That's right, and because she's the only one doing it, it's not that
irritating. If half the newsgroup were doing it, it would be a
nightmare, but as it is, it's no big deal.


S.

"cshenk" > wrote in message
...
> Kent wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>> "Storrmmee" > wrote in message
>
>
>> I think that kind of confusion occurs when people top post, a
>> violation of Net etiquite. Would you please start posting at the
>> bottom as does everyone else? I inappropriately responded to your top
>> posts today on the top.
>
> Kent, you've been here long enough to know how stupid that sounds I
> hope when applied to Lee who is blind and her screen reader top posts.
>
> If not, wake up and smell the roses.
>
>
I did not, until now, know that Lee has that disability. I wouldn't have not
criticized her posting as I did.

To Lee, please accept my apology.

Kent

"Storrmmee" > wrote in message
...
>i didn't see his post until you answered him, i have been eliminating those
>who no longer entertain me, and if he doesn't have the sense to know why i
>top post as he was reading the bbq group when i used to try and explain it,
>he is either stupid or going senile, either way not my problem anymre, Lee
> "cshenk" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Kent wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>> "Storrmmee" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> I think that kind of confusion occurs when people top post, a
>>> violation of Net etiquite. Would you please start posting at the
>>> bottom as does everyone else? I inappropriately responded to your top
>>> posts today on the top.
>>
>> Kent, you've been here long enough to know how stupid that sounds I
>> hope when applied to Lee who is blind and her screen reader top posts.
>>
>> If not, wake up and smell the roses.
>>
>>
As I said Lee, I haven' ever been aware that you have that disability.

Kent

"Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 06:43:52 -0400, Boron Elgar
> > wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 02:33:07 -0700, "Kent" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"sf" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:23:59 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Kent wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>>>> > "Storrmmee" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > I think that kind of confusion occurs when people top post, a
>>>>> > violation of Net etiquite. Would you please start posting at the
>>>>> > bottom as does everyone else? I inappropriately responded to your
>>>>> > top
>>>>> > posts today on the top.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kent, you've been here long enough to know how stupid that sounds I
>>>>> hope when applied to Lee who is blind and her screen reader top posts.
>>>>>
>>>>> If not, wake up and smell the roses.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> There is a certain cadre of rfc posters who try to make everyone else
>>>> think they are violating some obscure usenet rule if they top post,
>>>> but they are the ignorant ones. I didn't think Kent was one of them,
>>>> but he just proved me wrong.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>SF, look at this. I think this is pretty generally accepted. Lee is the
>>>only poster posting on the top at this time and it does screw up the
>>>thread
>>>now and then.
>>>http://linux.sgms-centre.com/misc/ne...te.php#toppost
>>>
>>>Kent
>>>
>>Lee has a valid reason for top posting.
>>
>>You, OTOH, have no valid reason for being an asshole.
>
> Actually he does... Kent was born with that defect.
>
> But I don't see the point in Kent's constant bitching about those top
> posts, simply don't open Lee's posts, I rarely do and then only by
> accident... and not because she's a top poster but becaue she *never*
> posts anything about food/cooking, all she does is criticize other's
> personal beeswax... there is absolutely nothing to learn from her... I
> have Lee filed under Non-Entity. Other posters who are abrasive at
> least post some interesting stuff. If both Lee and Kent ran off and
> eloped never to be heard from again I seriously doubt anyone would
> notice they're gone. I actually prefer the more abrasive posters to
> the lobotomized zombies so long as they contribute some on
> topic/interesting information... I can deal with the ball busters.
>
>
This is my first statement about top posting.

"Storrmmee" > wrote in message
...
> blake, what cracks me up beyond the fact that kent has been on more than
> one group where i have explained this, he has the right to just block me,
> i am no huge fan of sw but aat least he doesn't whine he blocks me and
> saves this arguement, Lee
> \
>
> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 02:33:07 -0700, Kent wrote:
>>
>>> "sf" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> There is a certain cadre of rfc posters who try to make everyone else
>>>> think they are violating some obscure usenet rule if they top post,
>>>> but they are the ignorant ones. I didn't think Kent was one of them,
>>>> but he just proved me wrong.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> SF, look at this. I think this is pretty generally accepted. Lee is the
>>> only poster posting on the top at this time and it does screw up the
>>> thread
>>> now and then.
>>> http://linux.sgms-centre.com/misc/ne...te.php#toppost
>>>
>>> Kent
>>>
>>> http://linux.sgms-centre.com/misc/ne...te.php#toppost
>>
>> 'DO NOT TOP-POST and DO trim your replies!!!'
>>
>> didn't you just say
>>
>> 'On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 21:07:25 -0700, "Kent" > wrote:
>>
>>>You have the right to trim. You don't have to.'?
>>
>> ...so apparently you can take netiquette or leave it.
>>
>> blake
>
>
Again, I did not know of your disability until now.

"Storrmmee" > wrote in message
...
> go look into the bbq group, that is the first time i explained it and got
> ripped for it, now i usually invite people to discuss in email or block
> me, this is a food group, not a netteique or disability group, and it is a
> waste of time, either people don't care or have already blocked me, so
> putting all this n here is a waste, sorta like that girl getting off of
> killing her kid, don't get me wrong, i listened to some coverage and read
> some stories, but now i am interested in food, not that verdict, Lee
>
>
> "cshenk" > wrote in message
> ...
>> sf wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>
>>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:23:59 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:
>>>
>>> > Kent wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>> > > "Storrmmee" > wrote in message
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > > I think that kind of confusion occurs when people top post, a
>>> > > violation of Net etiquite. Would you please start posting at the
>>> > > bottom as does everyone else? I inappropriately responded to your
>>> > > top posts today on the top.
>>> >
>>> > Kent, you've been here long enough to know how stupid that sounds I
>>> > hope when applied to Lee who is blind and her screen reader top
>>> > posts.
>>> >
>>> > If not, wake up and smell the roses.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> There is a certain cadre of rfc posters who try to make everyone else
>>> think they are violating some obscure usenet rule if they top post,
>>> but they are the ignorant ones. I didn't think Kent was one of them,
>>> but he just proved me wrong.
>>
>> Kent in exoneration may not have known it was a blindness issue
>> although Lee says she's told him before.
>>
>> Dunno.
>>
>> --
>>
>
To Lee and all: I did not know she had this disability until this thread
started.

Kent

On Jul 6, 12:35*am, "Kent" > wrote:
> "Storrmmee" > wrote in message
>
> ...
<snippage>
==
I have no problem reading top or bottom posting...so why do people
have trouble with any of this?
==

>
> To Lee and all: I did not know she had this disability until this thread
> started.
>
> Kent

==
I have no problem reading top or bottom posting...so why do people
have trouble with any of this?
==
A properly set up reader shows degrees of attribution so it is
relatively easy to tell who said what. It only gets a bit messy when
six or more people answer or respond to individual lines at irregular
entry points down long messages
==

On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 23:53:32 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 20:00:07 -0400, Boron Elgar wrote:
>
>> Now I really should add that neither you nor I know really the extent
>> of Lee's impairment and she is in a predicament these days, what with
>> her home having burned down and all, and I bet, just a friendly wager,
>> mind you, that she has others things weighing on her mind just a tad
>> more than finding a screen reading program that fits YOUR needs. But,
>> I am more knowledgeable than you in at least knowing Lee is a woman,
>> not a man, so you see you aren't right all the time, don't you?
>
>Lee is the only one here who consistently top posts unnecessarily. I
>don't have the patience to scroll up and down trying comprehend
>replies made to/from Lee, or reformatting my replies and her responses
>to that I may respond.
>
>For years she's had to "put up" with the flames generated by this
>easily fixable problem, so I tend believe she likes the negative
>attention and inconveniencing people.
>
>That's enough reason for me to killfile it.
>
>-sw

I have a great suggestion...go poke your eyes out with a sharp stick,
then come back and participate in Usenet.

Boron

On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 23:20:42 -0700, "Kent" >
wrote:

>
>"cshenk" > wrote in message
m...
>> Kent wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>> "Storrmmee" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> I think that kind of confusion occurs when people top post, a
>>> violation of Net etiquite. Would you please start posting at the
>>> bottom as does everyone else? I inappropriately responded to your top
>>> posts today on the top.
>>
>> Kent, you've been here long enough to know how stupid that sounds I
>> hope when applied to Lee who is blind and her screen reader top posts.
>>
>> If not, wake up and smell the roses.
>>
>>
>I did not, until now, know that Lee has that disability. I wouldn't have not
>criticized her posting as I did.
>
>To Lee, please accept my apology.
>
>Kent
>
>
>

Good on you, Kent.

On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 19:42:36 -0400, Cheryl >
wrote:

>On 7/5/2011 11:26 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>> Kent wrote:
>>>
>>> I think that kind of confusion occurs when people top post.
>>
>> Your perpetual confusion has nothing to do with top posting.
>>
>> Confusion occurs when pinheaded miscreants don't define what kind of
>> rib roast... what occured to me first was pork... folks are far more
>> likely to cook a pork rib roast on their grill, and most especially
>> this time of year... beef rib roasts are not big sellers during warmer
>> months, they are far more likely presented in the meat case as beef
>> rib steaks. I saw that picture, what a waste, so hacked it looked like
>> what my cats gack up... that poster would be wise to never again
>> prepare any kind of roast... best they stick to burgers and purchase
>> their sliced meat from Subway.
>
>Oh bite me. No, wait............... taking it back. taking it
>back.........


I don't bite... I nibble

how arrogant to think one can pass a judgement on what is and is not
nessary, this is not only hillarious, but pompus and arrogant, next sw will
be telling those of you with children how many is nessary... too funny, Lee

"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
...
> Sqwertz > wrote:
>
>>Lee is the only one here who consistently top posts unnecessarily.
>
> That's right, and because she's the only one doing it, it's not that
> irritating. If half the newsgroup were doing it, it would be a
> nightmare, but as it is, it's no big deal.
>
>
> S.

the saddest part of this is that he has talked about his own disabilities
and the stresses with having ceizures and the difficulty/non understand he
gets, but can't accept that others also have limitations, and his greatest
disability to mee seems to be that with this attitude he will and might be
already very loney and alone without real relationships in future, Lee


"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 23:53:32 -0500, Sqwertz >
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 20:00:07 -0400, Boron Elgar wrote:
>>
>>> Now I really should add that neither you nor I know really the extent
>>> of Lee's impairment and she is in a predicament these days, what with
>>> her home having burned down and all, and I bet, just a friendly wager,
>>> mind you, that she has others things weighing on her mind just a tad
>>> more than finding a screen reading program that fits YOUR needs. But,
>>> I am more knowledgeable than you in at least knowing Lee is a woman,
>>> not a man, so you see you aren't right all the time, don't you?
>>
>>Lee is the only one here who consistently top posts unnecessarily. I
>>don't have the patience to scroll up and down trying comprehend
>>replies made to/from Lee, or reformatting my replies and her responses
>>to that I may respond.
>>
>>For years she's had to "put up" with the flames generated by this
>>easily fixable problem, so I tend believe she likes the negative
>>attention and inconveniencing people.
>>
>>That's enough reason for me to killfile it.
>>
>>-sw
>
> I have a great suggestion...go poke your eyes out with a sharp stick,
> then come back and participate in Usenet.
>
> Boron

On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 20:00:07 -0400, Boron Elgar
> wrote:

>On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 12:48:42 -0500, Sqwertz >
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 06:43:52 -0400, Boron Elgar wrote:
>>
>>> Lee has a valid reason for top posting.
>>
>>Lee could install OE Quotefix if for soem reason his "screen reader"
>>does not allow him to use the "End" key (which I find hard to
>>believe). And this has been mentioned to him dozens of times and why
>>I have killfiled him.
>>
>>-sw
>
>You are free to KF anyone for any reason you choose. I am a big
>believer in KFs, though I have never placed anyone in one for
>formatting. Assholery, however, is a good reason in my book.
>
>You know, formatting "standards" vary by froup and forum and have
>changed radically since the old days of Usenet & BBs, when many
>aspects of formatting were created and maintained to ensure the reader
>would know who was replying and to what. A decent newsreader makes
>that pretty easy these days, by and large, and to KF someone of value,
>especially one who has a valid reason for her top posting, for an old
>fashioned rule that really doesn't affect the comprehension or
>continuity of a thread in the 21st century, is rather foolish. But
>hey, that's me. One of the reasons that Usenet is dying is that it is
>filled with get-off-my-lawn geezers and stick-in-the mud rule
>sticklers.
>
>Now I really should add that neither you nor I know really the extent
>of Lee's impairment and she is in a predicament these days, what with
>her home having burned down and all, and I bet, just a friendly wager,
>mind you, that she has others things weighing on her mind just a tad
>more than finding a screen reading program that fits YOUR needs. But,
>I am more knowledgeable than you in at least knowing Lee is a woman,
>not a man, so you see you aren't right all the time, don't you?
>
>Now I am sure if Blinky were still around he'd have shit enough bricks
>over Lee to have built her a new house three or four times.Oh, he must
>be twirling right now.
>
>Boron

If you reread your post it'll become apparent that you're speaking out
of both sides of your mouth, the true politico mightily working to
walk middle ground, like several others here you need everyone to like
you... you'd feel much better about yourself if you learned to like
yourself. I've been reading you a very long time, you are much too
stoic and hardnosed, and yet non committal.

On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 23:53:32 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 20:00:07 -0400, Boron Elgar wrote:
>
>> Now I really should add that neither you nor I know really the extent
>> of Lee's impairment and she is in a predicament these days, what with
>> her home having burned down and all, and I bet, just a friendly wager,
>> mind you, that she has others things weighing on her mind just a tad
>> more than finding a screen reading program that fits YOUR needs. But,
>> I am more knowledgeable than you in at least knowing Lee is a woman,
>> not a man, so you see you aren't right all the time, don't you?
>
>Lee is the only one here who consistently top posts unnecessarily. I
>don't have the patience to scroll up and down trying comprehend
>replies made to/from Lee, or reformatting my replies and her responses
>to that I may respond.
>
>For years she's had to "put up" with the flames generated by this
>easily fixable problem, so I tend believe she likes the negative
>attention and inconveniencing people.
>
>That's enough reason for me to killfile it.
>
>-sw

Here I have to agree with what you say, and Lee is not worth reading
anyway, but I don't killfile due to quoting and I'm not going to
ignore entire threads that interest me, then I lose and they win...
it's easy not to open posts from particular posters. And I don't
believe Lee even has a serious vision problem, she's much too prolific
a poster. I also don't think on a cooking group we need to know
anyone's handicaps, frailities, and identity crisis details... I don't
want to tip toe around anyones pity-mes... yoose got an abnormalty,
fine, but STFU about it, because when you pick at my sore spots I'm
going to zero in on yours, and anyone in your gang you're protecting,
and with a vengence only I can infflict. And anyone thinks there's no
cabel has their head up their ass. And don't think those who haven't
the spine to say it to your face keep quiet, you can bet your bipee
those scumbags will be emailing/phoning each other 24/7. I refrain
from emailing people here simply because I've caught more than one
forwarding my personal correspondence... sooner or later someone on
their forwarding list is gonna slip up in a post and spill the beans
by saying something they couldn't have known any other way... a word
to the wise for newbies, be very cautious about who you befriend on
the net because adds are very slim they will befriend you back with
the integrity you afford them, first opportunity they will stab you in
the back.

Sqwertz wrote:
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>>>Lee is the only one here who consistently top posts unnecessarily.
>>
>> That's right, and because she's the only one doing it, it's not that
>> irritating. If half the newsgroup were doing it, it would be a
>> nightmare, but as it is, it's no big deal.

It is a big deal even if just one person is selfish, and even an even
bigger deal to let just one scumbag get away with inflicting their
scumbaggery on everyone and then to add insult to injury some
spineless assholes appologize for the scumbaggery and gladly accept
being shit on.

>And because she's the only one doing it, it makes it easy to killfile.
>Which is how I've lived with it for the last year without a peep until
>now. I used to defend her as well until she took my suggestion for an
>easy software fix and spit on it.

Exactly.

>She WANTS to top post.

EXACTLY!

If I could get away with it I'd poke her ****ing eyes out and shove
them in her lying mouth.

On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 06:44:17 -0400, Boron Elgar
> wrote:

>On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 23:53:32 -0500, Sqwertz >
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 20:00:07 -0400, Boron Elgar wrote:
>>
>>> Now I really should add that neither you nor I know really the extent
>>> of Lee's impairment and she is in a predicament these days, what with
>>> her home having burned down and all, and I bet, just a friendly wager,
>>> mind you, that she has others things weighing on her mind just a tad
>>> more than finding a screen reading program that fits YOUR needs. But,
>>> I am more knowledgeable than you in at least knowing Lee is a woman,
>>> not a man, so you see you aren't right all the time, don't you?
>>
>>Lee is the only one here who consistently top posts unnecessarily. I
>>don't have the patience to scroll up and down trying comprehend
>>replies made to/from Lee, or reformatting my replies and her responses
>>to that I may respond.
>>
>>For years she's had to "put up" with the flames generated by this
>>easily fixable problem, so I tend believe she likes the negative
>>attention and inconveniencing people.
>>
>>That's enough reason for me to killfile it.
>>
>>-sw
>
>I have a great suggestion...go poke your eyes out with a sharp stick,
>then come back and participate in Usenet.

He'd still participate more intelligently than you, who CHOOSES not to
see.

On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 23:35:28 -0700, "Kent" >
wrote:

>
>"Storrmmee" > wrote in message
...
>> go look into the bbq group, that is the first time i explained it and got
>> ripped for it, now i usually invite people to discuss in email or block
>> me, this is a food group, not a netteique or disability group, and it is a
>> waste of time, either people don't care or have already blocked me, so
>> putting all this n here is a waste, sorta like that girl getting off of
>> killing her kid, don't get me wrong, i listened to some coverage and read
>> some stories, but now i am interested in food, not that verdict, Lee
>>
>>
>> "cshenk" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> sf wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:23:59 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Kent wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>>> > > "Storrmmee" > wrote in message
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > > I think that kind of confusion occurs when people top post, a
>>>> > > violation of Net etiquite. Would you please start posting at the
>>>> > > bottom as does everyone else? I inappropriately responded to your
>>>> > > top posts today on the top.
>>>> >
>>>> > Kent, you've been here long enough to know how stupid that sounds I
>>>> > hope when applied to Lee who is blind and her screen reader top
>>>> > posts.
>>>> >
>>>> > If not, wake up and smell the roses.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> There is a certain cadre of rfc posters who try to make everyone else
>>>> think they are violating some obscure usenet rule if they top post,
>>>> but they are the ignorant ones. I didn't think Kent was one of them,
>>>> but he just proved me wrong.
>>>
>>> Kent in exoneration may not have known it was a blindness issue
>>> although Lee says she's told him before.
>>>
>>> Dunno.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>
>To Lee and all: I did not know she had this disability until this thread
>started.

So all along you surmised that Lee was just your ordinary run of the
mill mental defect.

On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 21:23:45 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 19:14:35 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:
>
>> sf wrote:
>>
>> > It only screws up the thread when someone who doesn't snip properly,
>> > can't read reply markers or uses a news reader that doesn't insert
>> > reply markers participates in it.
>>
>> If I'm replying to Lee, I quote what Lee wrote and post below it. If (for
>> some reason) I needed to include part of the message to which Lee was
>> replying, I would cut out Lee's portion and paste it below that message so
>> that it's easy to follow the conversation. That's simply being considerate
>> to the readers. It's only a few seconds' work.
>>
>I wasn't thinking about you, Bob.

First post sf has written I believe.

On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 21:40:52 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 19:35:34 -0400, Cheryl >
>wrote:
>
>> On 7/5/2011 12:03 AM, sf wrote:
>>
>> > But a decent oven doesn't heat up the house or even the kitchen. When
>> > it's hot, I choose to use an oven and not the cooktop because oven
>> > cooking keeps the room cooler.
>>
>> If that's true, all the more reason for me to hurry up and upgrade. I
>> don't have a decent oven. It's electric (whoa, Electric Slide flashback
>> for a second there ... ok, I'm back) and radiates a lot of heat from the
>> top and the front while it's on. Opening the door to check on things
>> (note for Kent - don't do that when cooking YP) my little kitchen gets
>> really really hot. Since the kitchen is small, it heats up the other
>> rooms just as quickly.
>
>I have electric - (self-cleaning) wall ovens, not a single unit stove.
>A big part of the reason they don't radiate heat is because they are
>self-cleaning which means extra insulation. The interior "exhaust"
>doesn't raise the heat in my kitchen noticeably, so I just can't
>relate to people complaining about their ovens and heat unless the
>door is wide open.

Your oven exhausts the same amount of heat into your kitchen as any
oven... self cleaning and extra insulation mean absolutely nothing,
that heat still eventually is exhausted/radiated into your kitchen,
albiet perhaps at a slightly lower rate, but every calorie worth.

>HOWEVER, since I converted my cooktop to gas...
>OMG, that is total heat waste. I was so shocked by how it heats up
>the kitchen, I looked up the subject and gas burners waste 75% of
>their heat. It's a good thing natural gas is so cheap and I need to
>heat the house most of the time anyway.

All things being equal gas burners waste less heat than electric
element burners because gas burners do not require one to have flat
pot bottoms, however any top burner wastes heat when improperly used.
By this post of yours alone I know you can't cook a lick... I
sincerely believe that sf is capable of tying her shoe laces, she is
that mentally defective... and this pinheaded imbecile is allegedly a
school teacher. CA!

Sqwertz wrote:
>cshenk wrote:
>
>> Irrelevant in this case. Get over it. The only screen reader she has
>> that works for her hardware and needs, top posts.
>
>But a simple software fix will easily fix the top posting problem.
>Why does she refuse to install that?

Because she sees just fine... when she's not boozing/drugging.

On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 13:02:53 -0400, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:

> All things being equal gas burners waste less heat than electric
> element burners because gas burners do not require one to have flat
> pot bottoms, however any top burner wastes heat when improperly used.
> By this post of yours alone I know you can't cook a lick... I
> sincerely believe that sf is capable of tying her shoe laces, she is
> that mentally defective... and this pinheaded imbecile is allegedly a
> school teacher. CA!

You're wrong.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 23:24:56 -0700, "Kent" >
wrote:

>
>"Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 06:43:52 -0400, Boron Elgar
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 02:33:07 -0700, "Kent" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"sf" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:23:59 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Kent wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>>>>> > "Storrmmee" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > I think that kind of confusion occurs when people top post, a
>>>>>> > violation of Net etiquite. Would you please start posting at the
>>>>>> > bottom as does everyone else? I inappropriately responded to your
>>>>>> > top
>>>>>> > posts today on the top.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kent, you've been here long enough to know how stupid that sounds I
>>>>>> hope when applied to Lee who is blind and her screen reader top posts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If not, wake up and smell the roses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> There is a certain cadre of rfc posters who try to make everyone else
>>>>> think they are violating some obscure usenet rule if they top post,
>>>>> but they are the ignorant ones. I didn't think Kent was one of them,
>>>>> but he just proved me wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>SF, look at this. I think this is pretty generally accepted. Lee is the
>>>>only poster posting on the top at this time and it does screw up the
>>>>thread
>>>>now and then.
>>>>http://linux.sgms-centre.com/misc/ne...te.php#toppost
>>>>
>>>>Kent
>>>>
>>>Lee has a valid reason for top posting.
>>>
>>>You, OTOH, have no valid reason for being an asshole.
>>
>> Actually he does... Kent was born with that defect.
>>
>> But I don't see the point in Kent's constant bitching about those top
>> posts, simply don't open Lee's posts, I rarely do and then only by
>> accident... and not because she's a top poster but becaue she *never*
>> posts anything about food/cooking, all she does is criticize other's
>> personal beeswax... there is absolutely nothing to learn from her... I
>> have Lee filed under Non-Entity. Other posters who are abrasive at
>> least post some interesting stuff. If both Lee and Kent ran off and
>> eloped never to be heard from again I seriously doubt anyone would
>> notice they're gone. I actually prefer the more abrasive posters to
>> the lobotomized zombies so long as they contribute some on
>> topic/interesting information... I can deal with the ball busters.
>>
>>
>This is my first statement about top posting.

You need to consider both sides before fawning at her crotch... Lee's
disability is her 'need to control' personality defect. Lee has
posted here periodically since long before you ever heard of usenet.
She glommed onto her can't-see alibi only as a way to be controlling.
Lee probably has better 'vision' than you, in fact I know she does
with how easily she has maneuvered you. Just becaue someone you've
encountered on the net claims to be defective and begs pity doesn't
mean you need to believe them.

Storrmmee wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> for humanities sake i hope he works out some of his other issues
> first... a friend once said, "some people have issues, others have a
> lifetime subscription,"

ROFTL!


--

Sqwertz wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 17:46:36 -0500, cshenk wrote:
>
> > Storrmmee wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> >
> >> i didn't see his post until you answered him, i have been
> eliminating >> those who no longer entertain me, and if he doesn't
> have the sense to >> know why i top post as he was reading the bbq
> group when i used to >> try and explain it, he is either stupid or
> going senile, either way >> not my problem anymre, Lee
> >
> > Agreed. The group as a whole works well with this need and he's the
> > rare one who has 'issues'. Perhaps one day, he will solve his
> > issues over it. No matter either way.
>
> I used to defend her also until she flatly refused to fix the problem
> with a simple software fix. So screw her. She likes the flames and
> attention, apparently.

No, she has tried several other softwares but they do not work well
with her hardware. You want she should dig out several thousand
dollars for new hardware and cost of the new software just to suit
*you*?

I think we can all deal with top posting in a case like this. Sure
there are products that auto-bottom post and usable by the blind, but
they aren't suitable in her case. endtrans




--

and the program he his talking about for oe cost me nine hours of
uninstalling and reinstalling as it ate part of the s/r program, gramby was
trying a different s/r at the same time, she called me lhao because when she
tried this "simple" fix, it made the one she was using stutter like a
freezing drunk geezer, it was quite entertaining until she tried to get out
of it, evidentally, there is some common code or something that the two
programs fight over and it ended up a mess in both our computers, but no
matter, what is quite amusing now is that even though i am evil and he has
blocked me he insists on reading and commenting on something he professes to
not care about, man what a sad life, lol, Lee
"cshenk" > wrote in message
...
> Sqwertz wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>> On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 17:46:36 -0500, cshenk wrote:
>>
>> > Storrmmee wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>> >
>> >> i didn't see his post until you answered him, i have been
>> eliminating >> those who no longer entertain me, and if he doesn't
>> have the sense to >> know why i top post as he was reading the bbq
>> group when i used to >> try and explain it, he is either stupid or
>> going senile, either way >> not my problem anymre, Lee
>> >
>> > Agreed. The group as a whole works well with this need and he's the
>> > rare one who has 'issues'. Perhaps one day, he will solve his
>> > issues over it. No matter either way.
>>
>> I used to defend her also until she flatly refused to fix the problem
>> with a simple software fix. So screw her. She likes the flames and
>> attention, apparently.
>
> No, she has tried several other softwares but they do not work well
> with her hardware. You want she should dig out several thousand
> dollars for new hardware and cost of the new software just to suit
> *you*?
>
> I think we can all deal with top posting in a case like this. Sure
> there are products that auto-bottom post and usable by the blind, but
> they aren't suitable in her case. endtrans
>
>
>
>
> --
>

Sqwertz wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> There is a easy solution to the problem which she refuses to adopt.
> She is no different than regular OE users who go to the "trouble" of
> bottom posting.

You need to get a life and recognize your personal opinion because you
googled for 5 seconds and came up with what you *thought* would work is
not relevant.

She and I have been chatting offline on screenreaders and tests since
2007. I used to build special systems for people with adaptive
technology needs and beta tested many of them in the late 80's and
early 90's.

She's more up to speed on the modern stuff because I haven't worked on
that since 1995. She sends me links of the newest cool toys though to
read up on!


--

Brooklyn1 wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 06:44:17 -0400, Boron Elgar
> > wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 23:53:32 -0500, Sqwertz >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 20:00:07 -0400, Boron Elgar wrote:
> > >
> >>> Now I really should add that neither you nor I know really the
> extent >>> of Lee's impairment and she is in a predicament these
> days, what with >>> her home having burned down and all, and I bet,
> just a friendly wager, >>> mind you, that she has others things
> weighing on her mind just a tad >>> more than finding a screen
> reading program that fits YOUR needs. But, >>> I am more
> knowledgeable than you in at least knowing Lee is a woman, >>> not a
> man, so you see you aren't right all the time, don't you?
> > >
> > > Lee is the only one here who consistently top posts
> > > unnecessarily. I don't have the patience to scroll up and down
> > > trying comprehend replies made to/from Lee, or reformatting my
> > > replies and her responses to that I may respond.
> > >
> > > For years she's had to "put up" with the flames generated by this
> > > easily fixable problem, so I tend believe she likes the negative
> > > attention and inconveniencing people.
> > >
> > > That's enough reason for me to killfile it.
> > >
> > > -sw
> >
> > I have a great suggestion...go poke your eyes out with a sharp
> > stick, then come back and participate in Usenet.
>
> He'd still participate more intelligently than you, who CHOOSES not to
> see.

Sheldon, please get it through your head. Lee really is blind. Has
some limited ability to tell it is daytime in bright light and that is
about it. It's been that way for years for her.

Unlike many, you do not see her moaning or apologizing for it. It
simply 'is how it is'.


--

Brooklyn1 wrote in rec.food.cooking:


> You need to consider both sides before fawning at her crotch... Lee's
> disability is her 'need to control' personality defect. Lee has
> posted here periodically since long before you ever heard of usenet.
> She glommed onto her can't-see alibi only as a way to be controlling.
> Lee probably has better 'vision' than you, in fact I know she does
> with how easily she has maneuvered you. Just becaue someone you've
> encountered on the net claims to be defective and begs pity doesn't
> mean you need to believe them.

Lee has been here only a few months. Less than a year. She has been
in other groups though for several years.


--

carol don't worrry about him, i think i made him look stupid over a cat
issue and he can't forgive that, just too funny,

Lee
"cshenk" > wrote in message
...
> Brooklyn1 wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>
>> You need to consider both sides before fawning at her crotch... Lee's
>> disability is her 'need to control' personality defect. Lee has
>> posted here periodically since long before you ever heard of usenet.
>> She glommed onto her can't-see alibi only as a way to be controlling.
>> Lee probably has better 'vision' than you, in fact I know she does
>> with how easily she has maneuvered you. Just becaue someone you've
>> encountered on the net claims to be defective and begs pity doesn't
>> mean you need to believe them.
>
> Lee has been here only a few months. Less than a year. She has been
> in other groups though for several years.
>
>
> --
>

Storrmmee wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> and the program he his talking about for oe cost me nine hours of
> uninstalling and reinstalling as it ate part of the s/r program,
> gramby was trying a different s/r at the same time, she called me
> lhao because when she tried this "simple" fix, it made the one she
> was using stutter like a freezing drunk geezer, it was quite
> entertaining until she tried to get out of it, evidentally, there is
> some common code or something that the two programs fight over and it
> ended up a mess in both our computers, but no matter, what is quite
> amusing now is that even though i am evil and he has blocked me he
> insists on reading and commenting on something he professes to not
> care about, man what a sad life, lol, Lee "cshenk" >

Oh man, I remember that one! I didn't know ti came from Swertz though.

There's a memory leak in TSR related but dang if I know what it is in
more specifics. It probably didnt jive with one of the keyboard built
in macros your screenreader uses.

Odd that it tripped Gramby too as her hardware/software is not the
same. Thats what you get though when a person who knows *nothing* on
the subject assumes a short little google 'fixes it' and is clueless on
the interaction of the parts on your systems. It's as stupid as
suggesting a new mouse driver to a person using a sip-n-puff setup.

If you recall what the item was, I'll look at it. A little code debug
and it may hit either the reserved memory area for manupulation used by
screen readers or hits assembly level keyboard. Both would hash you up.


> wrote in message ...
> > Sqwertz wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> >
> > > On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 17:46:36 -0500, cshenk wrote:
> > >
> >>> Storrmmee wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> > > >
> >>>> i didn't see his post until you answered him, i have been
> >>eliminating >> those who no longer entertain me, and if he doesn't
> >>have the sense to >> know why i top post as he was reading the bbq
> >>group when i used to >> try and explain it, he is either stupid or
> >>going senile, either way >> not my problem anymre, Lee
> > > >
> >>> Agreed. The group as a whole works well with this need and he's
> the >>> rare one who has 'issues'. Perhaps one day, he will solve his
> >>> issues over it. No matter either way.
> > >
> > > I used to defend her also until she flatly refused to fix the
> > > problem with a simple software fix. So screw her. She likes the
> > > flames and attention, apparently.
> >
> > No, she has tried several other softwares but they do not work well
> > with her hardware. You want she should dig out several thousand
> > dollars for new hardware and cost of the new software just to suit
> > *you*?
> >
> > I think we can all deal with top posting in a case like this. Sure
> > there are products that auto-bottom post and usable by the blind,
> > but they aren't suitable in her case. endtrans
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --



--

On 7/6/2011 5:01 AM, Storrmmee wrote:
> how arrogant to think one can pass a judgement on what is and is not
> nessary, this is not only hillarious, but pompus and arrogant, next sw will
> be telling those of you with children how many is nessary... too funny, Lee

I view these posts by using a T-bird preview screen. I don't know how
everybody else reads newsgroups but your top posting saves me the
trouble of having relocate my pointer to the little box thingie and
dragging down to scroll to the bottom. I guess everybody else must have
some kind of automatic scrolling gizmo or they really enjoy being forced
to make the same sequence of moves over and over again.

>
> "Steve > wrote in message
> ...
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Lee is the only one here who consistently top posts unnecessarily.
>>
>> That's right, and because she's the only one doing it, it's not that
>> irritating. If half the newsgroup were doing it, it would be a
>> nightmare, but as it is, it's no big deal.
>>
>>
>> S.
>

On 2011-07-07, dsi1 > wrote:

> dragging down to scroll to the bottom. I guess everybody else must have
> some kind of automatic scrolling gizmo or they really enjoy being forced
> to make the same sequence of moves over and over again.

No, they don't.

So, when someone top posts and fails to trim, "everbody else" has to
scroll down, then back up, ad naseum, to figure out what that top post
is in reference to. Almost everone does not have photgraphic memory
and can not recall in perfect detail what the previous poster said and
what the current top poster is replying to at the bottom of the page.
So, apparently, it's what's convenient for you versus what's convenient for the
majority. I guess you figure everyone else can screw off as long
as the top poster is happy. Thanks fer clarifying.

nb

"Storrmmee" > wrote in message
...
> the saddest part of this is that he has talked about his own disabilities
> and the stresses with having ceizures and the difficulty/non understand he
> gets, but can't accept that others also have limitations, and his greatest
> disability to mee seems to be that with this attitude he will and might be
> already very loney and alone without real relationships in future, Lee
>
>
> "Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 23:53:32 -0500, Sqwertz >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 20:00:07 -0400, Boron Elgar wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now I really should add that neither you nor I know really the extent
>>>> of Lee's impairment and she is in a predicament these days, what with
>>>> her home having burned down and all, and I bet, just a friendly wager,
>>>> mind you, that she has others things weighing on her mind just a tad
>>>> more than finding a screen reading program that fits YOUR needs. But,
>>>> I am more knowledgeable than you in at least knowing Lee is a woman,
>>>> not a man, so you see you aren't right all the time, don't you?
>>>
>>>Lee is the only one here who consistently top posts unnecessarily. I
>>>don't have the patience to scroll up and down trying comprehend
>>>replies made to/from Lee, or reformatting my replies and her responses
>>>to that I may respond.
>>>
>>>For years she's had to "put up" with the flames generated by this
>>>easily fixable problem, so I tend believe she likes the negative
>>>attention and inconveniencing people.
>>>
>>>That's enough reason for me to killfile it.
>>>
>>>-sw
>>
>> I have a great suggestion...go poke your eyes out with a sharp stick,
>> then come back and participate in Usenet.
>>
>> Boron
>
>
>the saddest part of this is that he has talked about his own disabilities
>and the stresses with having ceizures and the difficulty/non understand >he
>gets, but can't accept that others also have limitations, and his >greatest
>disability to mee seems to be that with this attitude he will and might be
>already very loney and alone without real relationships in >future, Lee
>
>
" he has talked about his own disabilities" above

Who is he??

That's the problem.

Kent









>

"Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 23:35:28 -0700, "Kent" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Storrmmee" > wrote in message
...
>>> go look into the bbq group, that is the first time i explained it and
>>> got
>>> ripped for it, now i usually invite people to discuss in email or block
>>> me, this is a food group, not a netteique or disability group, and it is
>>> a
>>> waste of time, either people don't care or have already blocked me, so
>>> putting all this n here is a waste, sorta like that girl getting off of
>>> killing her kid, don't get me wrong, i listened to some coverage and
>>> read
>>> some stories, but now i am interested in food, not that verdict, Lee
>>>
>>>
>>> "cshenk" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> sf wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:23:59 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Kent wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>>>> > > "Storrmmee" > wrote in message
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > > I think that kind of confusion occurs when people top post, a
>>>>> > > violation of Net etiquite. Would you please start posting at the
>>>>> > > bottom as does everyone else? I inappropriately responded to your
>>>>> > > top posts today on the top.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Kent, you've been here long enough to know how stupid that sounds I
>>>>> > hope when applied to Lee who is blind and her screen reader top
>>>>> > posts.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > If not, wake up and smell the roses.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> There is a certain cadre of rfc posters who try to make everyone else
>>>>> think they are violating some obscure usenet rule if they top post,
>>>>> but they are the ignorant ones. I didn't think Kent was one of them,
>>>>> but he just proved me wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Kent in exoneration may not have known it was a blindness issue
>>>> although Lee says she's told him before.
>>>>
>>>> Dunno.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>
>>To Lee and all: I did not know she had this disability until this thread
>>started.
>
> So all along you surmised that Lee was just your ordinary run of the
> mill mental defect.
>
>
I guess that's one way of putting it. This thread proves that, even with
her disability, if it exists.

On 2011-07-07, Kent > wrote:

> The above is absolute Horseshit!! This the first time I've ever mentioned
> top posting. As well, I've never posted anything that replied to or
> referenced Lee.
>
> And you obviously do come to groups to be noticed and you enjoy that you're
> stressing others out.
>
> Top posting does screw up the integrity of a thread.

As does your piece of crap OE, which fails to indentify/attribute
previous posts. How silly to criticize others for ingnoring a single
netiquette practice while you yourself break several more.

I'm outta this one. It's jes too stupid to follow.

nb

Steve wrote about Lee:

> She is no different than regular OE users who go to the "trouble" of
> bottom posting.

I don't think you meant that the way it came out.

Bob