|
|
Posted by John Hosking on 04/20/07 23:26
Neo Geshel wrote:
> Sherm Pendley wrote:
>
>> Neo Geshel <gotcha@geshel.org> writes:
>>
>>> NOTE: PAST EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN ME THAT MANY ON USENET FAIL TO READ
posts by arrogant bastards who think they're better than mere humans.
>>
>> You begin by cross-posting, shouting, and then telling us that we should
>> read an article "properly", even though you can't be bothered to post it
>> that way.
>
> Would you rather I multi-post? Having been using the Internet for 16+
> years, it is my understanding that cross-posting is *far* more
> preferable than multi-posting.
You are not excused to do something stupid and rude by threatening to do
something even more stupid and rude. And if you've really got 16 years
of experience of using the Internet, maybe you'd know how to narrow down
appropriate NGs. Or maybe that 16 years of Internet experience includes
only 16 minutes of USENET experience?
>
> You know, in the future I could always multi-post articles, if that
> would make you happy. That way, people reading in one NG would be unable
> to see answers to the same post in another NG.
Um, thanks, but we already know what's wrong with multi-posting. What'd
you do, just Google this up in the last half-hour?
>> Do you seriously expect constructive replies after that?
>
>
> It’s always a fool’s hope to expect constructive replies from Usenet,
....and yet, you came here; what's that say about you?
> especially with more complicated or more detailed posts. That’s why I
> tried to weed out those who would just parrot back that which I clearly
> stated I wasn’t interested in, or had already discounted.
>
> And yes, the more precise or more technical an article I post, the more
> people that reply with an answer I had already clearly stated that I
> discounted, or clearly stated I had no interest in. Hence, my attempt to
> “focus” people.
Too bad you don't have a two-by-four you can whack us with, or maybe a
Taser; that'd get our attention. Pity you have to resort to such crude
means as using words and ALL CAPS.
>
>> My advice is, since using XHTML is causing problems, use HTML instead.
>> Problem solved.
>
>
> I have far more problems with HTML and “quirks mode” rendering
> differences between browsers with HTML that I have ever had with XHTML.
Then induce *standards* mode. Combine this with Sherm's suggestion and
(Please pay attention here; I WANT YOU TO *FOCUS*) you get HTML in
standards mode.
>
> You are the first person to reply to this post, dearie. No-one
> has *tried* to help me with *this* post and *this* issue yet.
I suggest you not expect a long line of helpful folks. Dearie.
--
John
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|