Freeware after ten

On 02/06/2015 06:05 PM, Robson wrote:
"philo" escreveu na mensagem ...

On 02/06/2015 05:35 PM, Robson wrote:
"

snip

alternatively:

"I think a person who doesn't have...."

Thanks, I don't speak english very well, I know a few words. I agree
with you. People is plural, so should be "People who don't".



Believe me, your English is pretty good.

My ego feels flattered, have a nice weekend.

Best wishes.



You too.

On 06 Feb 2015, "Robson" wrote in
alt.comp.os.windows-10:

I'm no thief. I think people who doesn't have a credit card to
rent original microsoft products must use Linux to feel free of
silly accusations.

Interpol will hunt you down and put you in a secret Siberian work camp
for the rest of your life.

On 06 Feb 2015, "Robson" wrote in
alt.comp.os.windows-10:

I'm no thief. I think people who doesn't have a credit card to
rent original microsoft products must use Linux to feel free of
silly accusations.

Interpol will hunt you down and put you in a secret Siberian work camp
for the rest of your life.

"Nil" escreveu na mensagem ...

On 06 Feb 2015, "Robson" wrote in
alt.comp.os.windows-10:

I'm no thief. I think people who doesn't have a credit card to
rent original microsoft products must use Linux to feel free of
silly accusations.

Interpol will hunt you down and put you in a secret Siberian work camp
for the rest of your life.

I would believe you if I was Russian. In my country there is no perpetual
conviction.

"Nil" escreveu na mensagem ...

On 06 Feb 2015, "Robson" wrote in
alt.comp.os.windows-10:

I'm no thief. I think people who doesn't have a credit card to
rent original microsoft products must use Linux to feel free of
silly accusations.

Interpol will hunt you down and put you in a secret Siberian work camp
for the rest of your life.

I would believe you if I was Russian. In my country there is no perpetual
conviction.

Robson wrote:

Probably after windows ten I'll be moving to Linux because is free and you
won't risk of being accused of stealing software. It's a surreal trap this
windows ten technical preview. They give it for free but you don't even have
a decent calculator so people run to illegal download and install properties
of microsoft.

You really don't need to make up bogus excuses for moving away from
Windows to use *NIX. Your post hints of a Linux proselytizer trying to
make up reasons why Windows should not be used.

Yes, Windows (for now and for PUBLIC releases) costs money. No surprise
there. It's always been about the have and have-nots (those with money
and those without). Same goes for owning a computer. Same for having
Internet access.

If Windows, any version, is outside your pocket change then go with
something else. Except for video games, most any software on Windows
has a counterpart for *NIX (although the choices are usually much
smaller). Same for any payware whether it comes from Microsoft or
elsewhe there are often lots of freeware alternatives. You don't
have to buy Microsoft Office, either, as there are lots of free
alternatives.

Robson wrote:

Probably after windows ten I'll be moving to Linux because is free and you
won't risk of being accused of stealing software. It's a surreal trap this
windows ten technical preview. They give it for free but you don't even have
a decent calculator so people run to illegal download and install properties
of microsoft.

You really don't need to make up bogus excuses for moving away from
Windows to use *NIX. Your post hints of a Linux proselytizer trying to
make up reasons why Windows should not be used.

Yes, Windows (for now and for PUBLIC releases) costs money. No surprise
there. It's always been about the have and have-nots (those with money
and those without). Same goes for owning a computer. Same for having
Internet access.

If Windows, any version, is outside your pocket change then go with
something else. Except for video games, most any software on Windows
has a counterpart for *NIX (although the choices are usually much
smaller). Same for any payware whether it comes from Microsoft or
elsewhe there are often lots of freeware alternatives. You don't
have to buy Microsoft Office, either, as there are lots of free
alternatives.

John wrote:

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.

Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

A: Top-posting.

Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?


You can't even top-post correctly. Regardless of the argument for top-
versus bottom-posting, whatever is your choice should also be evident in
the same order of quoted posts. If you top-post then arrange all quoted
content in top-post order. If you bottom-post then arrange all quoted
content on bottom-post order. Whatever posting style you argue for
should also be evident in all the content you quote; else, you don't
practice a posting order and instead compose a jumbled mess of top- and
bottom-posted content because you're too lazy by using the default order
of your NNTP client. Your choice of NNTP client (WLM) doesn't even
properly quote the cited content since version 14 so that task is now up
to you to perform. You don't do that, either.

It's not too difficult to read a comment in a posting (like the one
above this paragraph from you) then to start typing *UNDER* it so the
normal flow of English narrative is preserved, as I have just done. I
can't understand why so many prats find this impossible to manage.
To top-post they have to read the message they are replying to *and*
*then* *return* *to* *the* *top* *of* *the* *message*. That is simply
idiotic.
But top-posters don't seem to see this.
That baffles me.
J.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

John wrote:

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.

Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

A: Top-posting.

Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?


You can't even top-post correctly. Regardless of the argument for top-
versus bottom-posting, whatever is your choice should also be evident in
the same order of quoted posts. If you top-post then arrange all quoted
content in top-post order. If you bottom-post then arrange all quoted
content on bottom-post order. Whatever posting style you argue for
should also be evident in all the content you quote; else, you don't
practice a posting order and instead compose a jumbled mess of top- and
bottom-posted content because you're too lazy by using the default order
of your NNTP client. Your choice of NNTP client (WLM) doesn't even
properly quote the cited content since version 14 so that task is now up
to you to perform. You don't do that, either.

It's not too difficult to read a comment in a posting (like the one
above this paragraph from you) then to start typing *UNDER* it so the
normal flow of English narrative is preserved, as I have just done. I
can't understand why so many prats find this impossible to manage.
To top-post they have to read the message they are replying to *and*
*then* *return* *to* *the* *top* *of* *the* *message*. That is simply
idiotic.
But top-posters don't seem to see this.
That baffles me.
J.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

"Monty" wrote in message
...
John wrote:

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read
text.

Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

A: Top-posting.

Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?


You can't even top-post correctly. Regardless of the argument
for top-
versus bottom-posting, whatever is your choice should also be
evident in
the same order of quoted posts. If you top-post then arrange
all quoted
content in top-post order. If you bottom-post then arrange
all quoted
content on bottom-post order. Whatever posting style you
argue for
should also be evident in all the content you quote; else, you
don't
practice a posting order and instead compose a jumbled mess of
top- and
bottom-posted content because you're too lazy by using the
default order
of your NNTP client. Your choice of NNTP client (WLM) doesn't
even
properly quote the cited content since version 14 so that task
is now up
to you to perform. You don't do that, either.

It's not too difficult to read a comment in a posting (like
the one
above this paragraph from you) then to start typing *UNDER* it
so the
normal flow of English narrative is preserved, as I have just
done. I
can't understand why so many prats find this impossible to
manage.
To top-post they have to read the message they are replying to
*and*
*then* *return* *to* *the* *top* *of* *the* *message*. That is
simply
idiotic.
But top-posters don't seem to see this.
That baffles me.
J.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints:
---

But that is only true if one assumes that you are entering a
discussion mid-stream. In business, if you are one of the
original addressees, then you get all responses, preferably at
the top, because then you don't have to scroll down to the bottom
to see the latest response. This is the standard practice for
all US government communications. If you are an added addressee,
then feel free to scroll down to see the previous discussion.

Regards, Dan

P.S. I use bottom postings only to satisfy those net nannies,
who contradict common sense.

"Monty" wrote in message
...
John wrote:

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read
text.

Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

A: Top-posting.

Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?


You can't even top-post correctly. Regardless of the argument
for top-
versus bottom-posting, whatever is your choice should also be
evident in
the same order of quoted posts. If you top-post then arrange
all quoted
content in top-post order. If you bottom-post then arrange
all quoted
content on bottom-post order. Whatever posting style you
argue for
should also be evident in all the content you quote; else, you
don't
practice a posting order and instead compose a jumbled mess of
top- and
bottom-posted content because you're too lazy by using the
default order
of your NNTP client. Your choice of NNTP client (WLM) doesn't
even
properly quote the cited content since version 14 so that task
is now up
to you to perform. You don't do that, either.

It's not too difficult to read a comment in a posting (like
the one
above this paragraph from you) then to start typing *UNDER* it
so the
normal flow of English narrative is preserved, as I have just
done. I
can't understand why so many prats find this impossible to
manage.
To top-post they have to read the message they are replying to
*and*
*then* *return* *to* *the* *top* *of* *the* *message*. That is
simply
idiotic.
But top-posters don't seem to see this.
That baffles me.
J.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints:
---

But that is only true if one assumes that you are entering a
discussion mid-stream. In business, if you are one of the
original addressees, then you get all responses, preferably at
the top, because then you don't have to scroll down to the bottom
to see the latest response. This is the standard practice for
all US government communications. If you are an added addressee,
then feel free to scroll down to see the previous discussion.

Regards, Dan

P.S. I use bottom postings only to satisfy those net nannies,
who contradict common sense.

On Mon, 9 Feb 2015 13:54:56 -0500, Dan Schumacher wrote:

"Monty" wrote in message
...
John wrote:

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read
text.

Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

A: Top-posting.

Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?


You can't even top-post correctly. Regardless of the argument
for top-
versus bottom-posting, whatever is your choice should also be
evident in
the same order of quoted posts. If you top-post then arrange
all quoted
content in top-post order. If you bottom-post then arrange
all quoted
content on bottom-post order. Whatever posting style you
argue for
should also be evident in all the content you quote; else, you
don't
practice a posting order and instead compose a jumbled mess of
top- and
bottom-posted content because you're too lazy by using the
default order
of your NNTP client. Your choice of NNTP client (WLM) doesn't
even
properly quote the cited content since version 14 so that task
is now up
to you to perform. You don't do that, either.

It's not too difficult to read a comment in a posting (like
the one
above this paragraph from you) then to start typing *UNDER* it
so the
normal flow of English narrative is preserved, as I have just
done. I
can't understand why so many prats find this impossible to
manage.
To top-post they have to read the message they are replying to
*and*
*then* *return* *to* *the* *top* *of* *the* *message*. That is
simply
idiotic.
But top-posters don't seem to see this.
That baffles me.
J.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints:
---

But that is only true if one assumes that you are entering a
discussion mid-stream. In business, if you are one of the
original addressees, then you get all responses, preferably at
the top, because then you don't have to scroll down to the bottom
to see the latest response. This is the standard practice for
all US government communications. If you are an added addressee,
then feel free to scroll down to see the previous discussion.

Regards, Dan

P.S. I use bottom postings only to satisfy those net nannies,
who contradict common sense.

Stand by for a flame war :-)

I happen to agree with you, but I never admit it publicly.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Mon, 9 Feb 2015 13:54:56 -0500, Dan Schumacher wrote:

"Monty" wrote in message
...
John wrote:

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read
text.

Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

A: Top-posting.

Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?


You can't even top-post correctly. Regardless of the argument
for top-
versus bottom-posting, whatever is your choice should also be
evident in
the same order of quoted posts. If you top-post then arrange
all quoted
content in top-post order. If you bottom-post then arrange
all quoted
content on bottom-post order. Whatever posting style you
argue for
should also be evident in all the content you quote; else, you
don't
practice a posting order and instead compose a jumbled mess of
top- and
bottom-posted content because you're too lazy by using the
default order
of your NNTP client. Your choice of NNTP client (WLM) doesn't
even
properly quote the cited content since version 14 so that task
is now up
to you to perform. You don't do that, either.

It's not too difficult to read a comment in a posting (like
the one
above this paragraph from you) then to start typing *UNDER* it
so the
normal flow of English narrative is preserved, as I have just
done. I
can't understand why so many prats find this impossible to
manage.
To top-post they have to read the message they are replying to
*and*
*then* *return* *to* *the* *top* *of* *the* *message*. That is
simply
idiotic.
But top-posters don't seem to see this.
That baffles me.
J.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints:
---

But that is only true if one assumes that you are entering a
discussion mid-stream. In business, if you are one of the
original addressees, then you get all responses, preferably at
the top, because then you don't have to scroll down to the bottom
to see the latest response. This is the standard practice for
all US government communications. If you are an added addressee,
then feel free to scroll down to see the previous discussion.

Regards, Dan

P.S. I use bottom postings only to satisfy those net nannies,
who contradict common sense.

Stand by for a flame war :-)

I happen to agree with you, but I never admit it publicly.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Franklin wrote:

On Mon, 9 Feb 2015 11:20:51 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Mon, 9 Feb 2015 13:54:56 -0500, Dan Schumacher wrote:


Three qualifiers:
1. Monty mistakenly said "e-mail" instead of "USENET posting" or
"newsgroup posting".
Those four lines are part of an archive going back about 30 years. I
didn't notice that I had not changed the reference to e-mail instead
of Usenet posting. I have now changed that reference. Thank you.

He compounded that error by top posting.
I wasn't compounding that error. I posted those four lines at the
start of my message in support of John's comment re top posting - in
an attempt to demonstrate the short-comings of top posting,
particularly when posting to Usenet.


2. Email and USENET/newsgroups are two different things.

3. The discussion pertains to where the discussion is taking place
- that is to say, newsgroups.


But that is only true if one assumes that you are entering a
discussion mid-stream.
This would be the normal usage of Usenet.


Then that (bottom posting - yes, top posting - no) is true, because
you, in fact, entered the discussion midstream. In newsgroups, even
if you are the 2nd poster, you have entered midstream.

In business, if you are one of the
original addressees, then you get all responses, preferably at
the top, because ...

Haven't seen any businesses using a USENET newsgoup to conduct
business, so I will guess that you are talking Email.

This is the standard practice for all US government
communications. ...

The US government doesn't communicate via USENET.

P.S. I use bottom postings only to satisfy those net nannies,
who contradict common sense.

Correct results, wrong reason.

Stand by for a flame war :-)

I happen to agree with you, but I never admit it publicly.

You agree with what? I agree with him - taken out of context, because
he is talking Email. I disagree with him, because he is applying it
to USENET.

Franklin wrote:

On Mon, 9 Feb 2015 11:20:51 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Mon, 9 Feb 2015 13:54:56 -0500, Dan Schumacher wrote:


Three qualifiers:
1. Monty mistakenly said "e-mail" instead of "USENET posting" or
"newsgroup posting".
Those four lines are part of an archive going back about 30 years. I
didn't notice that I had not changed the reference to e-mail instead
of Usenet posting. I have now changed that reference. Thank you.

He compounded that error by top posting.
I wasn't compounding that error. I posted those four lines at the
start of my message in support of John's comment re top posting - in
an attempt to demonstrate the short-comings of top posting,
particularly when posting to Usenet.


2. Email and USENET/newsgroups are two different things.

3. The discussion pertains to where the discussion is taking place
- that is to say, newsgroups.


But that is only true if one assumes that you are entering a
discussion mid-stream.
This would be the normal usage of Usenet.


Then that (bottom posting - yes, top posting - no) is true, because
you, in fact, entered the discussion midstream. In newsgroups, even
if you are the 2nd poster, you have entered midstream.

In business, if you are one of the
original addressees, then you get all responses, preferably at
the top, because ...

Haven't seen any businesses using a USENET newsgoup to conduct
business, so I will guess that you are talking Email.

This is the standard practice for all US government
communications. ...

The US government doesn't communicate via USENET.

P.S. I use bottom postings only to satisfy those net nannies,
who contradict common sense.

Correct results, wrong reason.

Stand by for a flame war :-)

I happen to agree with you, but I never admit it publicly.

You agree with what? I agree with him - taken out of context, because
he is talking Email. I disagree with him, because he is applying it
to USENET.