Is MailWasher any good?

[Heather]

Yah. Whatta mess those groups are.

Nah......they are fine unless some crusty AV type lands on the scene and
causes trouble......(VBG)

Like this group, we have fun as well as help people. Being serious all of
the time is totally boring. I love pulling your chain!!

XX Heather

 

[Heather]

Hi Puss....

Ahhh... I'm a pussycat!

Microsoft newsserver groups tend to have mostly posters who use
Outlook Express, that's why. ;-)

Yep......and I am one of them. I have no problems with OE or IE....

You've been around here for awhile, but Corse just showed up and now wants

to set the standard for the group? Amusing...

Yep again.....I gave up trying to convert you all a long time ago, but can't
resist the odd comment. I hate scrolling down......you hate top posting,
but you don't hear me complain about it, lol.

(Gawd, it was hard to write up here... just for fun, of course. I had
to keep scrolling down to read your points, then scroll back up to
type a reply to each. Inline posting is certainly easier in that respect.)

Heck.....I have no problems with that......read it once and then reply. But
then again, *I am Woman*.....etc. <g>

HF (tongue in cheek for any newbies here)

 

[null]

I love pulling your chain!!

XX Heather

Lady Astor to Winston Churchill in Parliament:

"Sir, if you were my husband, I would poison your tea."

Winnie:

"Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."




Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[yar]

a lot of the top posting ,bottom posting arguments seem to come from
people who want to control others.


"Heather - 14.07.2004 19:32 :
"
"> Wrong, pussycat!! In the Microsoft ng's, we all top post.....and
have this
"> amazing ability to remember what the post is all about. (G) I
find it way
"> more efficient than scrolling down 400 lines to see....*I agree*,
or minimal
"> words to that effect.
"
"most topposters (and many "afterposter" too) forget the main thing:
"snipping unnecessary quoting lines - quoting 400 lines only saying
""thanks" for example! That's a terrible behavior because of threads
"becoming more and more unreadable and waisting bandwidth and and
and...

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Quoth the raven Heather:

Hi Puss....

Hi Heather,

Yep......and I am one of them. I have no problems with OE or
IE....

But you know how to use it! (It doesn't trim signatures, though)

Yep again.....I gave up trying to convert you all a long time ago,
but can't resist the odd comment. I hate scrolling down......you
hate top posting, but you don't hear me complain about it, lol.

Oh, I don't complain either, as a rule. I just couldn't resist
replying to Corse's brazen comments.

Heck.....I have no problems with that......read it once and then
reply. But then again, *I am Woman*.....etc. <g>

Oh my. I'm doomed!

HF (tongue in cheek for any newbies here)

Firmly, no doubt...

 

[Heather]

Lady Astor to Winston Churchill in Parliament:

"Sir, if you were my husband, I would poison your tea."

Winnie:

"Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."

Damn......that is two good retorts!! You been into the sippin' whiskey??

)

Heather

 

[Heather]

Yo Yar.......you will note that I do not condemn bottom or middle posters,
but will defend my right to top post......ergo, not a control thing. That
part just comes naturally (G).

HF

 

[Buffalo]

Nonsense. Read this:

http://www.river.com/users/share/etiquette/


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg

This is from the above link:
"There's no way to build a threaded discussion with top-posting. Top-posting
severely inhibits others from understanding the conversation, because the
context of the conversation is out of order, as in broken."
Probably written a long time ago for a very valid reason.
Nowadays,this makes no sense at all. Quit believing everything you are told
and use that thing in your head, called a brain.
I asked earlier if different news readers made it look different
(ieossibly a reply at the bottom was where the news reader showed it
automatically ;like using the page down button.)

When following a post, esp a longer one, it is SO much faster and easier it
the replies are top posted, at least for me (I use OE).
How can you possibly argue against that??

 

[Buffalo]

Yeah,
If someone only says "thanks' and does it top posting, I don't have to
scroll ALL the way down those 400 lines to see it.
Can't you see it yet?

 

[Corse]

Art's website provides the following example of what is wrong with top
posting which, of course, provides a perfect example of what is exactly
right about it. The sample goes:

"I'll see you at Linda's wedding."
"Well, see ya soon."
"Congratulations!"
"Ten thousand a year."
"How much?"
"Got a really big raise this time."
"Sorry to hear it. How's the job?"
"She's not feeling well. Flu, I think."
"Same as ever. How's yours?"
"How's your wife?"
"They painted her purple. They should call her the Prune Fart now."
"Good. Did you hear what Martin and Sheila did to the Sea Breeze?"
"Good, and you?"
"Bill! How the heck are you?"


Reading from bottom to top is perfectly logical but more importantly, the
most recent and relevant information (that they will see each other at
Linda's wedding) is on top while the oldest and most irrelevant information
(their initial greeting) is at the bottom.

I'd like to thanks Art for providing this excellent example of the virtues
of top posting.


Corse.
_______________________________________

Wrong again.
???

If everyone top posted then you have a nice progression of
messages from bottom to top.

Nonsense. Read this:

http://www.river.com/users/share/etiquette/


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[Buffalo]

Quoth the raven Buffalo:


I read somewhere (can't find link at the moment) where it was stated
that top-posting began when Outlook Express decided it wanted to be a
newsreader. The default location of the insertion point was at the top
and folks didn't know they could/should press the PageDown key.

Is the default location with other news readers at the bottom?
Even if it is, it still makes sense 90% of the time ,to me,to top post, or
post inline when it adds to the post.

Lack of trimming compounds the problem. TOFU was born.
Text Oben Fullquote Unten (German)
Text Over, Fullquote Under

Most don't trim;top or bottom posters.

If you top-post to a message from several days ago, people will still
need to scroll down to see what you are replying to, then scroll back
up to read your response, because they will likely have forgotten the
original points, or need to refresh their memory. Especially for
someone who reads hundreds of posts every day.

Rarely have a problem with that. If I do, then I scroll.(better once in
awhile than ALL the time)

And of course, *inline posting* with proper trimming is the most
desirable method.

Not always. That seems to be your biggest problem. One way is not always the
best.
In this particular reply to you, it is by far the BEST.

BTW, please set your newsreader to a line length around 70 characters.

Thanks for that advice. Are you really having a problem with my line wrap,
or are you just whining and being picky?

This free program may help with your application:

What is the problem with my application and what application are you talking
about?

Boy, you are really either brainwashed or just afraid to modernize.
Quit trying to build yourself up by posting such links.

http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
(http://insideoe.tomsterdam.com/tools/#oequotefix)

Was there a problem with my quoting?
I don't think so.

More links:
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html Biased and useless.
http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

Using this quote in the article, belittles it and shows an arrogant
attitude.
""The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day
they start making vacuum cleaners." -Ernst Jan Plugge""
Who made that person the expert and spokesperson for all newsgroup
etiquette? Is that person your ng deity?

http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/gey_stv0.htm

Quote from the above link:
"First, top posters tend never to snip, never to shorten that to which they
reply. So people whose download time costs money are wasting money
downloading enormous lengths of stuff they have already read."
Never is a strong word. Do you actually believe people who preach like this?
Basically it says that most top posters ever snip. I guess that also implies
that bottom posters do.
Damn, that sounds like the Democrats and Republicans talking about each
other.

http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Top-posting_or_bottom-posting
http://mailformat.dan.info/quoting/top-posting.html
http://www.lionsgrove.com/topposting.html

Sorry, I had to blow off the above three as the others were very
predjudiced and arrogant.

-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

Not like your mind which seems to be full of outdated methods and outdated
ideas.
Other than that,
Cheers,
Buffalo
PS: the world would be a boring place if everybody agreed totally with each
other.

 

[Buffalo]

Art's website provides the following example of what is wrong with top
posting which, of course, provides a perfect example of what is exactly
right about it. The sample goes:

"I'll see you at Linda's wedding."
"Well, see ya soon."
"Congratulations!"
"Ten thousand a year."
"How much?"
"Got a really big raise this time."
"Sorry to hear it. How's the job?"
"She's not feeling well. Flu, I think."
"Same as ever. How's yours?"
"How's your wife?"
"They painted her purple. They should call her the Prune Fart now."
"Good. Did you hear what Martin and Sheila did to the Sea Breeze?"
"Good, and you?"
"Bill! How the heck are you?"


Reading from bottom to top is perfectly logical but more importantly, the
most recent and relevant information (that they will see each other at
Linda's wedding) is on top while the oldest and most irrelevant information
(their initial greeting) is at the bottom.

I'd like to thanks Art for providing this excellent example of the virtues
of top posting.


Corse.

Unfortunately many (bottom posting only) readers won't grasp what you just
said. They will still be reading Art's example from top to bottom and
agreeing with him (that it's hard to follow) rather than realizing that the
bottom line was the original post and each reply went above it and was the
first thing you saw while following the thread.
Great example.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Quoth the raven Buffalo:

Unfortunately many (bottom posting only) readers won't grasp what you just
said. They will still be reading Art's example from top to bottom and
agreeing with him (that it's hard to follow) rather than realizing that the
bottom line was the original post and each reply went above it and was the
first thing you saw while following the thread.

It isn't too hard to read bottom-to-top when it's a bunch of five-word
sentences. The English-reading human mind still has to spend
additional time consciously thinking to read upwards. Slow readers
will have less of a problem. Fast readers/scanners won't like it.
(Maybe that's the difference in the top/bottom argument? Slow readers
top-post?)

Back to the five-word sentences... I want you to tell me how easy it
is to read upward when each post in the chain is a couple or several
paragraphs like this. Your normal-sized window and your scroll button
or mouse is going to be working overtime with constant up/down/up jumps.

Great example.

I agree, for the opposite reasons, of course.

 

[Buffalo]

You still don't get it, do you.
Wow

Quoth the raven Buffalo:


It isn't too hard to read bottom-to-top when it's a bunch of five-word
sentences. The English-reading human mind still has to spend
additional time consciously thinking to read upwards. Slow readers
will have less of a problem. Fast readers/scanners won't like it.
(Maybe that's the difference in the top/bottom argument? Slow readers
top-post?)

Back to the five-word sentences... I want you to tell me how easy it
is to read upward when each post in the chain is a couple or several
paragraphs like this. Your normal-sized window and your scroll button
or mouse is going to be working overtime with constant up/down/up jumps.


I agree, for the opposite reasons, of course.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Quoth the raven Buffalo:

Thanks for that advice. Are you really having a problem with my line wrap,
or are you just whining and being picky?

No, I was getting about 130 character lines, which wrapped half-way in
my reader. I wasn't whining. <g> You may be using a wide window and
didn't notice.

Tools > Options > Send > News Sending Format > Plain Text Settings
What do you show for "Automatically wrap text at " ?

What is the problem with my application and what application are you talking
about?

The link just below to OE-Quotefix.

Boy, you are really either brainwashed or just afraid to modernize.

Quit trying to build yourself up by posting such links.

It's called evidence.

These next links are the ones that immediately followed my suggestion
about "This free program.." but you inserted a couple of paragraphs in
between.

Was there a problem with my quoting?
I don't think so.

Other than the line length in that message, no.

Biased and useless.

Of course they are biased. They are trying to describe the way it used
to be, until top-posters came along.

Sorry, I had to blow off the above three as the others were very
predjudiced and arrogant.
Perhaps.

OE-Quotefix would have trimmed the properly formed sig just above this
line.

Not like your mind which seems to be full of outdated methods and outdated
ideas.

Other than that,
Cheers,
Buffalo
PS: the world would be a boring place if everybody agreed totally with each
other.

Cheers.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Quoth the raven Buffalo:

You still don't get it, do you.
Wow

Do you have no rebuttal for my statements? <g>
Are you a slow reader?

I'll now remove the TOFU...

 

[Buffalo]

Quoth the raven Buffalo:


It isn't too hard to read bottom-to-top when it's a bunch of five-word
sentences. The English-reading human mind still has to spend
additional time consciously thinking to read upwards. Slow readers
will have less of a problem. Fast readers/scanners won't like it.
(Maybe that's the difference in the top/bottom argument? Slow readers
top-post?)

There you go, calling top posters slow readers.
Are you going to give me a 'link' to back that up too? Whee Haw !!!
Arrogant or just plain stupid are you.
You will never understand.
Sorry
Damn, wasn't this just the way to reply. You probably had to search for it.
Yes, I believe that most of the above and below was worth keeping, that's
why I didn't cut it.
Ignorance is Bliss.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Quoth the raven Buffalo:

There you go, calling top posters slow readers.
Are you going to give me a 'link' to back that up too? Whee Haw !!!

No, I don't have a link. The concept just occurred to me that it might
be the reason some people like top-posting. I wonder if anyone else
ever thought of it.

Arrogant or just plain stupid are you.

No, I'm not arrogant; if I was the words would be far different. My

You will never understand.
Sorry

Oh, I *do* understand. I understand that our opinions differ.

Damn, wasn't this just the way to reply. You probably had to search for it.

Not at all. I'm a fast reader.

Yes, I believe that most of the above and below was worth keeping, that's
why I didn't cut it.
Thanks!

Ignorance is Bliss.

At times...

It's getting late... time to call it a night.

 

[Corse]

But see, that's the point. When all the messages are top posted, there's no
reason to try to wend your way down to the bottom and figure who posted
what. The top post is the most recent post and it's right there in front of
your face. If you want to see what the top post is responding to, well,
it's the next post down. It's incredibly easy and satisfying. Now if
someone wanted to read the entire thread it would, of course, be the same
issue top to bottom or bottom to top of separating out who said what and
that certainly is an issue with bottom posting threads as they exist now.
What I normally do if I see a top posting thread that is getting long is I
just delete the lower down posts since the more recent and relevant posts
are on the top where they should be anyway.


Corse



It isn't too hard to read bottom-to-top when it's a bunch of five-word
sentences. The English-reading human mind still has to spend additional
time consciously thinking to read upwards. Slow readers will have less of a
problem. Fast readers/scanners won't like it. (Maybe that's the difference
in the top/bottom argument? Slow readers top-post?)

Back to the five-word sentences... I want you to tell me how easy it is to
read upward when each post in the chain is a couple or several paragraphs
like this. Your normal-sized window and your scroll button or mouse is
going to be working overtime with constant up/down/up jumps.

Great example.

I agree, for the opposite reasons, of course.

 

[Buffalo]

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty"

Quoth the raven Buffalo:


No, I was getting about 130 character lines, which wrapped half-way in
my reader. I wasn't whining. <g> You may be using a wide window and
didn't notice.

That's a fact.
Curious, why aren't you?
Seriously.
If that is a problem to many, I will adjust it. It was at 79, now it's at
70.

Tools > Options > Send > News Sending Format > Plain Text Settings
What do you show for "Automatically wrap text at " ?

was 79, now at 70 per you request.

The link just below to OE-Quotefix.




It's called evidence.

Unfortunately, it works as evidence against you.

These next links are the ones that immediately followed my suggestion
about "This free program.." but you inserted a couple of paragraphs in
between.


Other than the line length in that message, no.


Of course they are biased. They are trying to describe the way it used
to be, until top-posters came along.

Once again, you are showing your prejudice.
Shame on you

OE-Quotefix would have trimmed the properly formed sig just above this
line.

What difference did it make?

It's been around awhile. <g>

Posibbly too old to accept new ideas, buy possibly not.