In article >,
Mary Belle > wrote:

> I tried that and found I had killfiled most of the Americans.
> Americans are just a hateful, hating people and unless you bow to
> their superiority in your posts they will come at you with their hate.
> So I just tread lightly, seldom post, and stay away from the worse
> ones like that penmark person. My posts have always been trumped by a
> hateful American, which this one is sure to be.


That's odd. Your posting IP,
12.74.182.94
resolves to Tallahassee, Florida. Did you killfile yourself?

--
to respond (OT only), change "spamless.invalid" to "optonline.net"

<http://www.thecoffeefaq.com/>

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...

> O handing tarts out to Damsel, Lucy and anyone else who wants one

Damsel and I *are* tarts.

nancy

"Scott" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Mary Belle > wrote:
>
>> I tried that and found I had killfiled most of the Americans.
>> Americans are just a hateful, hating people and unless you bow to
>> their superiority in your posts they will come at you with their hate.
>> So I just tread lightly, seldom post, and stay away from the worse
>> ones like that penmark person. My posts have always been trumped by a
>> hateful American, which this one is sure to be.
>
>
> That's odd. Your posting IP,
> 12.74.182.94
> resolves to Tallahassee, Florida. Did you killfile yourself?
>

Probably an illegal immigrant

"jacqui{JB}" > wrote in
:

> If you
> want to fine-tune it a bit instead, highlight the message as
> above, click" Message," select "Create Rule from Sender," and
> select the parameters for blocking that particular sender: where
> you want the rule applied (just this newsgroup or all the default
> all newsgroups, if the subject contains particular words, etc),
> what you want to happen to such messages (delete, flag, etc.), and
> the name of the rule.

Be aware however that killfiles are not foolproof. Individuals are
not killfiled. Identities (actually character strings which are
contained in message headers) are. So if Joe Bfltsplk is killfiled
on an account being , you will still see him if he posts
from another account, say or even if he
identifies himself as such whether he is posting from aol.com or not.
I have only ever changed my identity when I have changed ISPs which
has happened a few times, but I have never purposefully tried to get
around people's plonk lists. Unfortunately I can't say the same for
some people I have killfiled over the years.

Also, killfiling does not mean you can't read someone's posting. For
example, unless they use X-No Archive, you can read their pathetic
mewlings on Google groups (where you can't killfile), and of course
if anyone quotes their ill-conceived "bon mots", you can read them as
quoted text (or as unedited bottom posted text in some cases) in
others' postings.

--

[...] remember when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down 'ere on Earth!

Monty Python's Universe Song

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ophelia" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> O handing tarts out to Damsel, Lucy and anyone else who wants one
>
> Damsel and I *are* tarts.

<G> I will take your word for that)))

Nancy Young wrote:

> "Ophelia" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > O handing tarts out to Damsel, Lucy and anyone else who wants one
>
> Damsel and I *are* tarts.
>

I love tarts.
To all the virgins in the world... thanks for nothing.
:-)

Nancy Young wrote:
> "Ophelia" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> O handing tarts out to Damsel, Lucy and anyone else who wants one
>
> Damsel and I *are* tarts.
>
> nancy


Hee hee hee, instead of Clash of the Titans you could be Crash of the
Tartans. :~)

kili

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Nancy Young wrote:
>
>> "Ophelia" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > O handing tarts out to Damsel, Lucy and anyone else who wants one
>>
>> Damsel and I *are* tarts.

> I love tarts.
> To all the virgins in the world... thanks for nothing.
> :-)

(Laugh!) That's funny.

nancy

"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
...

> Be aware however that killfiles are not foolproof.
> Individuals are not killfiled.

That's true, especially with OE. Other programs, such as Agent, have
better killfile capabilities.

> Also, killfiling does not mean you can't read
> someone's posting. For example, unless they
> use X-No Archive, you can read their pathetic
> mewlings on Google groups (where you can't
> killfile),

And if I understand correctly, even x-no-archive is under some debate
with the new version of Google.

> and of course if anyone quotes their ill-conceived
> "bon mots", you can read them as quoted text (or
> as unedited bottom posted text in some cases) in
> others' postings.

Editing and snipping is good. Exercising self-control is better.

And there are always other groups, if rfc isn't to one's liking. In
addition to rec.food.recipes and alt.cooking.chat, there are a number
of ethnic/specialty food groups; and I'm sure Yahoo! and MSN host
cooking groups, too.

As a regular in another group I read regularly says: If you don't like
what's being posted in the group, either leave the group or post
something you *would* like to read. Complaining about content without
actively contributing to the group is unhelpful.

Which is why I rarely complain about content here, since I'm mostly a
lurker. I browse, comment when the spirit moves me, keep my killfiles
active (occasionally reading unsnipped comments is enough to remind me
that my killfiles are warranted -- and I don't have many) and am
generally quite content.

-j

[piggybacking due to poor propagation]
"Scott" > wrote in message
...

Mary Belle:
> > I tried that and found I had killfiled most of
> > the Americans. Americans are just a hateful,
> > hating people and unless you bow to their
> > superiority in your posts they will come at you
> > with their hate. So I just tread lightly, seldom
> > post, and stay away from the worse ones like that
> > penmark person. My posts have always been trumped
> > by a hateful American, which this one is sure to be.

I'm curious, then, if you're so unhappy with content and the regular
posters, why you choose to stay? As I've replied elsewhere, there are
myriad other choices; why not find a better fit?
-j

"Lucy" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
> . com...
>> "Lucy" > wrote in message
>> . com...
>>> I've decided, after a few minutes of thought, to post however I see fit.
>>> So, if you hate top posted remarks, don't read them! I'm not downloading
>>> anything to move the cursor (although that was a kind suggestion),
>>
>> You do not need to download anything to move the cursor. You can use your
>> fingers, although there is a requirement that a brain be attached.
>>
>> Your attitude is all too common today. You are going to do what you want
>> and the hell with everyone else. You must be proud.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Peter Aitken
>>
> Wow.. there are some REALLY angry people here.
> I was laughing my ass off as I typed that. It was me joking. Go count how
> many time I've top posted. Rarely.. unless it's a simple lol or some such.
> It really is true what they say about net users. heh
>
>

Very common - someone posts something stupid (that's you). Then someone
calls them on it (that's me). Then the first person (you again) claims they
were joking. No one buys it.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

"Lucy" > wrote in message
om...
> p.s. where in tejas you from, feller?

I'm not; my in-laws are in Texas, though (Dallas/Ft. Worth
area), so I get repeated exposure to all things Texan. I'm
familiar enough with Texas to know that "King of the Hill,"
which most OUTSIDE of Texas consider to be a comedy, is
actually an animated documentary...

Me, personally...I was born and raised in Indiana - which is a
great place to be FROM - and have just gone over the
quarter-century mark in Colorado.

Bob "Texan by marriage, but rarely admit it" M.

"Lucy" > wrote in message
om...
> Netiquette also dictates one doesn't resort to calling a fellow poster a
> bitch.
> lucy

Actually, that would be just common etiquette, or what
used to be known, before its unfortunate demise, as
courteous and civil behavior. It's too bad that so many
consider electronic communications to be somehow not
subject to those norms.

Bob M.

"Terry Pulliam Burd" > wrote in message
...
>> above. I'd much rather read a top-posted post than one which
> >> has been bottom-posted by some moron who can't be bothered
> >> to trim the hundreds of lines that have been written previously.
> >
> >
> >I've seen this argument too often. Two wrongs don't make a right.
> >Netiquette says to bottom post *and* trim your posts.
>
> <clap! clap! clap!>

Oh, Jayzus H. Christ on a pogo stick....

OF COURSE "netiquette" says that; no one is disagreeing with that.
In ANY form of written communications, it should be the aim of the
writer to produce output in such a way that it is most readable by
the most number of people - at least, assuming that actually
communicating information was in fact their aim in the first place.
The supposed "rules of netiquette" all derive from that simple goal,
and I for one am certainly no disagreeing with them.

My problem, instead, is just with those who get so wrapped around
the axle regarding these "rules" that we can only conclude that
they consider them matters of life and death. It is to those people
that I am saying: chill out, folks- there are most definitely more important
things in life to worry about, and for that matter there is almost always
a more pleasant and courteous way for you to state your objections
to these minor faux pas. In other words, if this is how you deal with
what you consider to be objectionable formatting of a written
statement, I would really, truly hate to be around you when something
important goes wrong. For one thing, I don't like getting blood
spatter on my clothes...

Bob M.

>
> Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd's "me, too" post
> AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA
>
>
> "If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
> old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
> waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."
>
> -- Duncan Hines
>
> To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"

On 2005-01-29, Bob Myers > wrote:

> important goes wrong. For one thing, I don't like getting blood
> spatter on my clothes...

....he said, escalating it to the absurd.

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 09:41:29 -0500, "Nancy Young" >
wrote:

>"Ophelia" > wrote in message
k...
>
>> O handing tarts out to Damsel, Lucy and anyone else who wants one
>
>Damsel and I *are* tarts.

Yeah, and Nancy has "The Look." Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Carol
--
"Years ago my mother used to say to me... She'd say,
'In this world Elwood, you must be oh-so smart or oh-so pleasant.'
Well, for years I was smart.... I recommend pleasant. You may quote me."

*James Stewart* in the 1950 movie, _Harvey_

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 18:08:06 +0100, "jacqui{JB}"
> wrote:

>Which is why I rarely complain about content here, since I'm mostly a
>lurker. I browse, comment when the spirit moves me, keep my killfiles
>active (occasionally reading unsnipped comments is enough to remind me
>that my killfiles are warranted -- and I don't have many) and am
>generally quite content.

I hope you can see this. *smile* You are so outstandingly SANE! I can't
lay claim to that title, and I'm really impressed when I see it in someone
else.

Most of my filters are to stop anything sexist, racist, religious, or
political. Also, a wide variety of foods I'll never make, so there's no
point in reading about them. Hence, I filtered my own thread about
mussels. <G>

Carol
--
"Years ago my mother used to say to me... She'd say,
'In this world Elwood, you must be oh-so smart or oh-so pleasant.'
Well, for years I was smart.... I recommend pleasant. You may quote me."

*James Stewart* in the 1950 movie, _Harvey_

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 13:51:18 GMT, "Lucy"
> wrote:

>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > You go girl!
> >
> > LOL
> > sf
> > ``````````````
>
> OMG, sf.. you top posted!
> I'm tellinnnnnnnn MOM!!!
> lucy

I prefer to read top posters unless everything is on screen.
Then I don't care if it's top or bottom posting.

Unlike the complainers, I can tell who posted what according
to the >s on the side (if the snippers have snipped
carefully). I HATE rereading previous posts just to get to
the new stuff and that's what bottom posting makes us do.

sf

sf wrote:

> I prefer to read top posters unless everything is on screen.
> Then I don't care if it's top or bottom posting.
>
> Unlike the complainers, I can tell who posted what according
> to the >s on the side (if the snippers have snipped
> carefully). I HATE rereading previous posts just to get to
> the new stuff and that's what bottom posting makes us do.
>
> sf

awww come'on... just skip reading the words with
the carets in front of 'em.
So much of the problem can be solved if people
were more judicious about trimming up the
extraneous stuff too.
Goomba

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:34:35 -0800, "Sam D."
> wrote:

> until it was explained WHY doing so makes it
> unreasonably awkward and more difficult for others to follow the
> discussion, especially if there are one or more other posters that
> successively respond to your comment and to those that follow.

This is Usenet, not a list serve. We don't need or want
everybody's contribution in a single post.

> This is
> just a matter of etiquette and consideration for everyone else.

It's a matter of laziness! Bottom posting complainers are
too lazy or too egotistical to snip judiciously.

> And
> maybe I missed something but I have no idea what you mean by
> "downloading anything to move the cursor."

According to some bottom posting whiners - way back in the
dark ages of Usenet, the cursor defaulted to the bottom.
The way to do it these days is via a software program.


sf

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 21:39:14 -0600, Damsel >
wrote:

>Lucy? Lucy who??????

Just out of curiosity, has she posted anything remotely resembling,
say, a recipe? Cooking technique? Baking advice?
>
>Carol, lookin' all innocent-like

Nice try. Your face is going to freeze like that and *then* you can't
be an RFC trollop! HA!

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA


"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"

sf wrote:


> According to some bottom posting whiners - way back in the
> dark ages of Usenet, the cursor defaulted to the bottom.
> The way to do it these days is via a software program.
> sf

My browser(Netscape) preferences give me a choice
as to where I want the cursor to appear. It is
probably available to many who don't realize that
choice exists.
Goomba

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 17:27:18 -0500, Goomba38 > wrote:

>... problem ... solved ... people ... trim ... stuff.

Agreed!

Carol
--
"Years ago my mother used to say to me... She'd say,
'In this world Elwood, you must be oh-so smart or oh-so pleasant.'
Well, for years I was smart.... I recommend pleasant. You may quote me."

*James Stewart* in the 1950 movie, _Harvey_

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:15:31 -0800, sf >
wrote:

>I HATE rereading previous posts just to get to
>the new stuff and that's what bottom posting makes us do.

<BG> ?display the of alteration other some or ,color by post
new the and text old the between differentiate to you allow
newsreader your doesn't but ,point excellent an make You

--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

Kenneth wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:15:31 -0800, sf
> > wrote:
>
>> I HATE rereading previous posts just to get to
>> the new stuff and that's what bottom posting makes us do.
>
> <BG> ?display the of alteration other some or ,color by
> post new the and text old the between differentiate to
> you allow newsreader your doesn't but ,point excellent an
> make You
>
> --
> Kenneth
>
> If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

ROTFL MAO!

Took me 2 tries, but I got it!
Thanks! LOL

BOB

One time on Usenet, said:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:32:37 -0800, Terry Pulliam Burd
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >Damsel, I will fight you to the mat for the honor of being the
> >Reigning Queen Bitch. Now, back off! I will, however, allow you to be
> >my Bitch in Waiting <veg>
>
> It's my honor!

I'll let you ladies fight amongst yourselves, cause I'm way too
nice to be a bitch. <huge wink>

> >BTW, Lucy is not going to last with an attitude like that. Trust me.
> >I've been around this ng some 13 or something years.
>
> Lucy? Lucy who??????
>
> Carol, lookin' all innocent-like

Lucy? Sounds like a name that recently went into my killfile...

--
J.J. in WA ~ mom, vid gamer, novice cook ~
"You still haven't explained why the pool is
filled with elf blood." - Frylock, ATHF

Gal Called J.J. wrote:

> One time on Usenet, said:
>
>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:32:37 -0800, Terry Pulliam Burd
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Damsel, I will fight you to the mat for the honor of being the
>>>Reigning Queen Bitch. Now, back off! I will, however, allow you to be
>>>my Bitch in Waiting <veg>
>>
>>It's my honor!
>
>
> I'll let you ladies fight amongst yourselves, cause I'm way too
> nice to be a bitch. <huge wink>
>
>
>>>BTW, Lucy is not going to last with an attitude like that. Trust me.
>>>I've been around this ng some 13 or something years.
>>
>>
>>Lucy? Lucy who??????
>>
>>Carol, lookin' all innocent-like

Now... I think that you ladies using the term "bitch" should be
ashamed of yourselves. I propose that you use the term "-itch" and
let people substitute the B or W at their discretion.


--
Steve

Ever wonder about those people who spend $2.00 apiece on those little
bottles of Evian water? Try spelling Evian backwards...

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:42:21 -0800, Terry Pulliam Burd
> wrote:

>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 21:39:14 -0600, Damsel >
>wrote:
>
>>Lucy? Lucy who??????
>
>Just out of curiosity, has she posted anything remotely resembling,
>say, a recipe? Cooking technique? Baking advice?

Read the first post in "my lasagna recipe."

>>Carol, lookin' all innocent-like
>
>Nice try. Your face is going to freeze like that and *then* you can't
>be an RFC trollop! HA!

I always have Crash to testify in my defense.

Carol
--
"Years ago my mother used to say to me... She'd say,
'In this world Elwood, you must be oh-so smart or oh-so pleasant.'
Well, for years I was smart.... I recommend pleasant. You may quote me."

*James Stewart* in the 1950 movie, _Harvey_

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 13:51:18 GMT, "Lucy"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > You go girl!
>> >
>> > LOL
>> > sf
>> > ``````````````
>>
>> OMG, sf.. you top posted!
>> I'm tellinnnnnnnn MOM!!!
>> lucy
>
> I prefer to read top posters unless everything is on screen.
> Then I don't care if it's top or bottom posting.
>
> Unlike the complainers, I can tell who posted what according
> to the >s on the side (if the snippers have snipped
> carefully). I HATE rereading previous posts just to get to
> the new stuff and that's what bottom posting makes us do.
>
> sf

Well, (duh), if you are clever enough to identify previous posts by the >s,
you do not have to read them. Sheesh!

A: Because it puts the answer before the question.
Q. Why shouldn't I reply at the top?



--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

Bob Myers wrote:

> In ANY form of written communications, it should be the aim of the
> writer to produce output in such a way that it is most readable by
> the most number of people - at least, assuming that actually
> communicating information was in fact their aim in the first place.
> The supposed "rules of netiquette" all derive from that simple goal,
> and I for one am certainly no disagreeing with them.
>
> My problem, instead, is just with those who get so wrapped around
> the axle regarding these "rules" that we can only conclude that
> they consider them matters of life and death.

Moving from the general to the specific, when Lucy transgressed, she was
told GENTLY about the rules in question. Her response was pretty much that
she'd do whatever she damn well pleased, and the rest of us can shove it.

Of course it's not a life or death issue, but I thought axql put it best,
saying, "If your objective in posting is to reach an audience, then it
behooves you to post in a fashion acceptable to the community you're
communicating with."

Why offend the people you're asking for help? Judging from the responses,
she's already been killfiled by some of the most knowledgeable people here.

Bob

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2005-01-29, Bob Myers > wrote:
>
> > important goes wrong. For one thing, I don't like getting blood
> > spatter on my clothes...
>
> ...he said, escalating it to the absurd.

Well, only if it's being read by someone who just
insists on taking this whole thing Oh So Seriously....


Bob M.

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 18:39:13 -0500, Steve Calvin >
wrote:

>Now... I think that you ladies using the term "bitch" should be
>ashamed of yourselves. I propose that you use the term "-itch" and
>let people substitute the B or W at their discretion.

Yeah, but one's an attitude and the other is a religion.

Carol
--
"Years ago my mother used to say to me... She'd say,
'In this world Elwood, you must be oh-so smart or oh-so pleasant.'
Well, for years I was smart.... I recommend pleasant. You may quote me."

*James Stewart* in the 1950 movie, _Harvey_

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 17:00:14 -0700, "Bob Myers"
> wrote:

>"notbob" > wrote in message
...
>> On 2005-01-29, Bob Myers > wrote:
>>
>> > important goes wrong. For one thing, I don't like getting blood
>> > spatter on my clothes...
>>
>> ...he said, escalating it to the absurd.
>
>Well, only if it's being read by someone who just
>insists on taking this whole thing Oh So Seriously....

LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

* Exported from MasterCook *


Kettle Corn

Recipe By amsel in dis Dress
Serving Size : 0 Preparation Time :0:00
Categories : snacks

Amount Measure Ingredient -- Preparation Method
-------- ------------ --------------------------------
vegetable oil
popcorn
2 tablespoons granulated sugar
salt -- for sprinkling

In a three-quart saucepan (or "kettle") with a tight-fitting* lid, pour
enough oil to cover to a depth of about one-half the size of* a popcorn
kernel. Add two "test" kernels of popcorn, and turn heat to* medium high.
When the test kernels pop, the oil is hot enough to continue*.

Quickly pour in enough popcorn to cover the bottom of the sa*ucepan in an
even layer. Sprinkle the sugar over the unpopped kernels, a*nd place the
lid on the pan. As the corn pops, shake the pan occasionall*y to assure
that unpopped kernels reach the bottom of the pan. When the* lid starts to
lift off the pan and the popping slows or stops, remove pan *from heat.

Pour popped corn into a large bowl or several smaller ones. * Dust lightly
with salt.


Yield:
"12 cups"

Damsel wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 18:39:13 -0500, Steve Calvin >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Now... I think that you ladies using the term "bitch" should be
>>ashamed of yourselves. I propose that you use the term "-itch" and
>>let people substitute the B or W at their discretion.
>
>
> Yeah, but one's an attitude and the other is a religion.
>
> Carol

Well, that would depend on the context wouldn't it? ;-D

--
Steve

Ever wonder about those people who spend $2.00 apiece on those little
bottles of Evian water? Try spelling Evian backwards...

That's a pompous AND stupid reply. You aren't new to this
thread, so you know who posted and what they said. You
certainly didn't need the context of previous post quotes to
reply to me.

IF you were new to the thread, you would be very welcome to
scroll down and read the past quotes OR research the thread
via Google.... so IF you care THAT much about context (which
is something most people don't need to reply to most threads
in a ng like rfc), you can read the text quoted below or
Google the thread.

````````````````````````````````

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 23:53:50 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> wrote:

> "sf" > wrote in message
> >
> > I prefer to read top posters unless everything is on screen.
> > Then I don't care if it's top or bottom posting.
> >
> > Unlike the complainers, I can tell who posted what according
> > to the >s on the side (if the snippers have snipped
> > carefully). I HATE rereading previous posts just to get to
> > the new stuff and that's what bottom posting makes us do.
> >
> > sf
>
> Well, (duh), if you are clever enough to identify previous posts by the >s,
> you do not have to read them. Sheesh!
>
> A: Because it puts the answer before the question.
> Q. Why shouldn't I reply at the top?


sf

On 2005-01-30, Damsel > wrote:

> LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

Begin? ...hell Dam's, they've been going for two days!

Besides, it's beer 'n pizza night and there's an Ingrid Bergman film on (Inn
6th). I'm just gonna revert back to spectator and watch this feline fracas.

Enjoy =D
nb

Goomba38 > wrote in news:s5idnfuwhsVbkGHcRVn-
:

> sf wrote:
>
>> I prefer to read top posters unless everything is on screen.
>> Then I don't care if it's top or bottom posting.
>>
>> Unlike the complainers, I can tell who posted what according
>> to the >s on the side (if the snippers have snipped
>> carefully). I HATE rereading previous posts just to get to
>> the new stuff and that's what bottom posting makes us do.
>>
>> sf
>
> awww come'on... just skip reading the words with
> the carets in front of 'em.
> So much of the problem can be solved if people
> were more judicious about trimming up the
> extraneous stuff too.
> Goomba
>

The problem with that is that one or two posters don't have anything to
indicate what's quoted. I think one of them was posting from Google, so
it could be the way it works there.

SallyW

On 2005-01-30, Sal > wrote:
>
> The problem with that is that one or two posters don't have anything to
> indicate what's quoted. I think one of them was posting from Google, so
> it could be the way it works there.

Yes, it appears Google's default setting is to leave out quoted text. This
is no doubt due to the fact that it is Google itself that is archiving
newsgroups so they are going to do whatever they can to decrease the load.
IOW, they are trying to change how usenet works to benefit themselves. It
appears a user of their usenet service can add the quoted text, but most
noobs have no clue about netiquette.

nb

Steve wrote:

> I propose that you use the term "-itch" and
> let people substitute the B or W at their discretion.

....unless you meant D, H, or P in that blank!

Ditches are groovy. I dig ditches.

Bob

On 29 Jan 2005 20:51:02 -0600, "Bob" > wrote:

>Ditches are groovy. I dig ditches.

<Damsel thwacks Bob over the noggin with a ditch-digging shovel>

Carol
--
"Years ago my mother used to say to me... She'd say,
'In this world Elwood, you must be oh-so smart or oh-so pleasant.'
Well, for years I was smart.... I recommend pleasant. You may quote me."

*James Stewart* in the 1950 movie, _Harvey_