Re: Anyone moved to LED Lighting?

[PowerSerge <noSpam@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Let's face it. Don was trolling using the oldest and most
sickening troll on Usenet.  "I can't understand the meaning in
your posting format"

When you start redefining your own symbols and character
definitions people will just laugh at you. He got what he
desrved by being an asshole, here.  He asked for quotation marks
and that is what he was shown.

A bit of a joker, this Joesphi, but I think he responded on the
mark.

Can we get on with the topic at hand and stop the childish
stuff?


On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:56:48 -0800, David Nebenzahl
<nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Sucks, and you know it.

Come on; get with the program. Doesn't take a fucking genius to
skim a
few messages and pick up on the standard posting scheme in any
Usenet
newsgroup.

o Bottom post (or intersperse your comments *after* those of who
you're
responding to--same difference).

o The standard quotation marker is ">". Not quotation marks, not
hyphens, not asterisks, not any other cutesy character.

And while you're at it, learn to judiciously trim posts. You
don't need
to include every single character in the message you're
responding to.
(Classic case: replying to a 200-line post with 2 words.)

Don't be an idiot.

> ""Don Klipstein" <don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:slrnhjgcoo.jtr.don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "In article <0QAZm.4760$5i2.3163@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Josepi wrote:
> ">Feel free to rename all the character sets, if desired.
> "
> "  What - you want to be the first in my roughly 14 years of heavy
> "experience in Usenet suggesting that I need to accomodate you despite lack
> "of need to accomodate likewise anyone before you in probably over a
> "thousand posted responses to others?
>
> "
> "> Some may even understand part of your messages.
>
> "  I give better odds for them to understand mine than to understand yours,
> "at the rate you are going.
>
> ">I have never seen anybody use a quotation symbol for marking lines.
> ">Quotation marks usually mean a quotation from a previous piece of text. I
> ">think that would be why they are called that.
> "
> "  Yet, you appear to be unaware of the Usenet convention of having the
> "number of quotation symbols at beginning of each quoted line reflecting
> "the level of quotation.  Otherwise, you appear to be fighting such
> "established convention.