What in the HELLp is wrong with MS?

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 15:08:27 -0700, "Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP\)"
wrote:

Well, if that's what interests you and the problem is the cost of long
distance calls, have you considered Internet Phone Service.? One standard
monthly rate, no per minute charges, you can use your own phone with much
better sound quality than using your PC's mic input and speakers, none of
the dropouts or compatibility issues or differing setups based on different
and competing chat technologies.

I'm no MS plant. If you are true to your word about what you are seeking,
then this is a far better solution for you; here's one example
www.vonage.com. Many cable companies that offer broadband access are now
offering similar services. In fact, even many local telcos are offering
such service. One caveat, you usually need to go to a slightly higher tier
of service in order for it to include 911 service; it's generally not more
than an additional $5 or $10 a month. Aside from that, you can completely
replace your local and long distance service at a very reasonable price and
with many of these services, not only is long distance included but you have
no local toll calls either.

Thanks for the reply.

Voice over the Internet phone is going to be the future as far as I feel.
The only problem here is that the people that I use voice most with -
especially my old friend & my son, just about every day, are Messenger
users and are not going to change - and I live in a house where the
telephone is not in my name.. Really, the phone is not used except a
couple for times a week & local calls.. Might even be on lifeline
(restricted to a certain amount of calls). But I can't see getting any
kind of phone service and paying even a couple of dollars - I just don't
use a telephone much.

Now, I've answered you without clicking on your link, and I am going to as
soon as I send this off...

...D.

....D. wrote:

Voice over the Internet phone is going to be the future as far as I
feel. The only problem here is that the people that I use voice most
with - especially my old friend & my son, just about every day, are
Messenger users and are not going to change - and I live in a house
where the telephone is not in my name.. Really, the phone is not used
except a couple for times a week & local calls.. Might even be on
lifeline (restricted to a certain amount of calls). But I can't see
getting any kind of phone service and paying even a couple of dollars
- I just don't use a telephone much.

Did you try Skype? http://skype.com/

The sound quality is much much better compared to MSN, and way less
problems. You can call to ordinary phones too, and the other way around.

--
John Bokma Want to record a webcam session? See:
http://johnbokma.com/messenger/capturingwebcam.html
Experienced programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

I understand. You should be aware, most new voice over IP systems that
allow you to use your current telephone, don't require the other users to be
using Voice over IP. In other words, they receive the call on their normal
service. Of course, that would mean you'd be calling them but I wanted to
clarify that point.

Second, it should be understood, chat technology was not really designed for
voice. Yes, it's offered and from what I gather, in some cases it's quite
good but it's still something that was tacked on to something that wasn't
really designed for this. You don't get the same bandwidth and often, even
at its best, it's pretty clunky.

I know there have been a lot of problems with MS chat, especially with
regard to voice. I don't know why it has been so problematic but I do
realize it is a frustration for many users and my post was not an attempt to
defend that, it was simply to point out there are alternatives.

I can only point out such alternatives, only you can determine if the value
is there for you.

--
In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol.

Michael Solomon MS-MVP
Windows Shell/User
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/communities/mvp.aspx
Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/


"...D." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 15:08:27 -0700, "Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP\)"
wrote:

Well, if that's what interests you and the problem is the cost of long
distance calls, have you considered Internet Phone Service.? One standard
monthly rate, no per minute charges, you can use your own phone with much
better sound quality than using your PC's mic input and speakers, none of
the dropouts or compatibility issues or differing setups based on
different
and competing chat technologies.

I'm no MS plant. If you are true to your word about what you are seeking,
then this is a far better solution for you; here's one example
www.vonage.com. Many cable companies that offer broadband access are now
offering similar services. In fact, even many local telcos are offering
such service. One caveat, you usually need to go to a slightly higher
tier
of service in order for it to include 911 service; it's generally not more
than an additional $5 or $10 a month. Aside from that, you can completely
replace your local and long distance service at a very reasonable price
and
with many of these services, not only is long distance included but you
have
no local toll calls either.

Thanks for the reply.

Voice over the Internet phone is going to be the future as far as I feel.
The only problem here is that the people that I use voice most with -
especially my old friend & my son, just about every day, are Messenger
users and are not going to change - and I live in a house where the
telephone is not in my name.. Really, the phone is not used except a
couple for times a week & local calls.. Might even be on lifeline
(restricted to a certain amount of calls). But I can't see getting any
kind of phone service and paying even a couple of dollars - I just don't
use a telephone much.

Now, I've answered you without clicking on your link, and I am going to as
soon as I send this off...

...D.

Standard Skype, which is free would work and is certainly an alternative.
However, the free version can't reach standard phones. That said, that
wouldn't appear to be an issue for "D." I'm only pointing that out for
others who might be reading this thread.

--
In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol.

Michael Solomon MS-MVP
Windows Shell/User
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/communities/mvp.aspx
Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/


"John Bokma" wrote in message
...
...D. wrote:

Voice over the Internet phone is going to be the future as far as I
feel. The only problem here is that the people that I use voice most
with - especially my old friend & my son, just about every day, are
Messenger users and are not going to change - and I live in a house
where the telephone is not in my name.. Really, the phone is not used
except a couple for times a week & local calls.. Might even be on
lifeline (restricted to a certain amount of calls). But I can't see
getting any kind of phone service and paying even a couple of dollars
- I just don't use a telephone much.

Did you try Skype? http://skype.com/

The sound quality is much much better compared to MSN, and way less
problems. You can call to ordinary phones too, and the other way around.

--
John Bokma Want to record a webcam session? See:
http://johnbokma.com/messenger/capturingwebcam.html
Experienced programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

Michael Solomon (MS-MVP) wrote:

Please don't top post (it's miscommunication), moreover, don't top post
with a valid sig separator, it makes it harder for people using decent
Usenet clients.

"John Bokma" wrote in message
...

Did you try Skype? http://skype.com/

The sound quality is much much better compared to MSN, and way less
problems. You can call to ordinary phones too, and the other way around.

[ snip ]

Standard Skype, which is free would work and is certainly an alternative.
However, the free version can't reach standard phones.

As expected, who is going to pay for that?

[ snip my sig ]

--
John Bokma Want to record a webcam session? See:
http://johnbokma.com/messenger/capturingwebcam.html
Experienced programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

Michael Solomon (MS-MVP) wrote:

Second, it should be understood, chat technology was not really
designed for voice.

Define "chat technology"


--
John Bokma Want to record a webcam session? See:
http://johnbokma.com/messenger/capturingwebcam.html
Experienced programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

Response inline below:

--
In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol.

Michael Solomon MS-MVP
Windows Shell/User
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/communities/mvp.aspx
Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/


"John Bokma" wrote in message
...
Michael Solomon (MS-MVP) wrote:

Second, it should be understood, chat technology was not really
designed for voice.

Define "chat technology"

Perhaps the term technology was too strong. I will leave it at this, chat
client's were designed to use the internet for transmission of text
messages. Voice is an add-on that requires the user to interface their mic
and sound setup and introduces a number of outside varibles not present in
the chat client. If it works, fine. If not, the user may have some options
they can check and configure in the chat client but then there's a whole
host of other things outside of the client they may need to check if it's
not simply some option or selection they didn't tick within the client.

If the client was designed for this from the ground up, it would handle
those variables. Certainly, there can be issues between any application and
the operating system but with chat, there seems to be a great deal more
reliance on the user setup and that leaves the door wide open to all sorts
of possibile roadblocks.

Further, as in the case of "D," he wants to use chat for something for which
it was never intended, a telephone. From what I've seen, while there can
certainly be issues with Voice over IP, the solutions now being offered are
fairly turnkey with the application handling most of the setup work and
other than the free version of Skype completely bypasses the PC's sound
setup in favor of the telephone. Right there, that elminates potential
issues that are inherent in chat or in this case, voice chat.

I apologize for the top posting. I recognize what you politely requested is
generally accepted as proper Usenet ettiquette but that has not been the
case within Microsoft groups on the MS server. I have experimented with it
from time to time using OE Quote-Fix but I generally get a lot of people
complaining when I follow that format and only rarely receive such
complaints when I top post.

Again, I apologize but for now anyway, it will likely continue.


--
John Bokma Want to record a webcam session? See:
http://johnbokma.com/messenger/capturingwebcam.html
Experienced programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

Michael Solomon (MS-MVP) wrote:

Response inline below:

Thanks, but the bigger problem is that you put your sig above your
reply. Most smart Usenet clients remove the sig when you reply, and
hence, I end up with only the above line :-(

(copy + paste + fix )

"John Bokma" wrote in message
...
Michael Solomon (MS-MVP) wrote:

Second, it should be understood, chat technology was not really
designed for voice.

Define "chat technology"

Perhaps the term technology was too strong. I will leave it at this,
chat
client's were designed to use the internet for transmission of text
messages.

But the internet itself can handle arbitrary data (within certain bounds
of course).

Voice is an add-on that requires the user to interface their mic
and sound setup

Since there is a default API for handling sound in/out in most OSes,
again no problem.

If you can play music, you can hear sound coming from a voice chat
If you can record your voice, you can send it on the Internet.

and introduces a number of outside varibles not present in
the chat client. If it works, fine. If not, the user may have some
options
they can check and configure in the chat client but then there's a
whole
host of other things outside of the client they may need to check if
it's
not simply some option or selection they didn't tick within the
client.

As soon as it leaves the chat client, it's data, and it doesn't matter
anymore. Getting the audio in and out of the client is just software.

If the client was designed for this from the ground up, it would
handle
those variables. Certainly, there can be issues between any
application and
the operating system but with chat, there seems to be a great deal
more
reliance on the user setup and that leaves the door wide open to all
sorts
of possibile roadblocks.

The only road block is: making two clients connect *directly* without a
server in between. This means that they must accept incoming
connections. Which is a bit of a hassle to get working through
firewalls/NATs.

But it can be done, look at Skype. Works in more situations, better
sound quality, etc. Even the conference mode works like a dream (I
talked to my mom and brother a few days ago, Mexico - Netherlands).

Further, as in the case of "D," he wants to use chat for something for
which
it was never intended, a telephone. From what I've seen, while there
can

same with winks, nudges, and custom emoticons. Yet it's just data that
needs to go from one client to the other. The Internet was never
intended to host millions of websites, etc.

certainly be issues with Voice over IP, the solutions now being
offered are
fairly turnkey with the application handling most of the setup work
and
other than the free version of Skype completely bypasses the PC's
sound
setup in favor of the telephone.

I sincerly doubt that this has anything to do with the PC sound but much
more with: my mom has to learn how to use Skype. She is going to a
computer course. Yes, she already manages the basics, but just grabbing
a phone is way easier. And I think the same holds for a lot users, and I
mean a lot lot. Just grabbing a simple phone, keying in some access
code, and talking is way easier compared to turn on the PC, wait ...
wait... until it finished booting up, starting a voice chat application,
etc.

Even I consider a voice over the speakers more invading then a phone
conversation.

Right there, that elminates potential
issues that are inherent in chat or in this case, voice chat.

As far as I understand it, the biggest issue is getting the client
accepting incoming connections, through firewall/NAT.

I apologize for the top posting. I recognize what you politely
requested is
generally accepted as proper Usenet ettiquette but that has not been
the case within Microsoft groups on the MS server.

I read this group on "my" server, which is not a Microsoft server :-D

I have experimented with it
from time to time using OE Quote-Fix but I generally get a lot of
people
complaining when I follow that format

Try to remove everything that is no longer relevant. Most complaints are
about scrolling. People "here" often post a question, and think that the
answer is written only for them. If you carefully explain that the
messages are archived somewhere and can (and often) are read stand
alone, you sometimes can make clear that reading from top to bottom is
more natural, then scrolling down, scrolling up, read, scrolling down,
scrolling up, read, etc. Moreover, most top posters don't snip anything,
so the posting has a huge huge trail of garbage dangling under it,
wasting bandwidth, which we pay for in the end.

And all for a quick and free reply :-(

and only rarely receive such
complaints when I top post.

Again, I apologize but for now anyway, it will likely continue.

Print a random top posted message out, and try to make sense of it. You
will discover why it's annoying. Most top posters see Usenet as a help
desk, and every reply to their message as especially written for them,
almost like a private message. They prefer to have the answer on top,
since that's what they are looking for.

But it makes it way harder for people who start reading in a thread in
the middle (e.g. because they found it using Google groups).

People who insist on top posting are often egoists who only are "here"
for the free help, and contribute zilch.

It's a pitty that some well known MVPs, and I recall that P stands for
professional, serve Usenet postings as those egoists seem to prefer, not
caring about all those people who read their reply weeks, months, or
more later, and have a hard time making sense of it.

The Google archive of this group, and very likely similar MS groups are
huge collections of junk, bandwidth waste, and bad communication. In
short, unusable.

Somehow those trigger happy people prefer to repeat the same answer, on
top, over and over again instead of pointing to a excellent piece of
softwa Google groups.

Apologies for this rant, but I hope some others will rethink their
posting behaviour. In the end it will save up some bandwidth, and makes
the archives more readable, and hence, makes Usenet work.

--
John Bokma Want to record a webcam session? See:
http://johnbokma.com/messenger/capturingwebcam.html
Experienced programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

Well, I tried a compromise and that doesn't seem acceptable either. You
need look no further than my properties to know I'm using Outlook Express
for posting. I'd also point out, with the heavy volume of individuals who
post to these newsgroups from the Microsoft web interface, most of the posts
will not be formatted according to your desires or what is considered proper
etiquette for Usenet.

I'm not trying to be obtuse or argumentative, I did after all, attempt to
compromise with you and in the case of larger posts, I do, quite often reply
inline but even that didn't work for you because of signature placement,
something I would have to change specifically any time I replied to you.

I do apologize but I guess you'll just have to place me in your killfile if
this is unacceptable to you. I'd just point out, more and more users who
reach these groups did not start out on Usenet and often find reading bottom
posted messages annoying as well.

--
In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol.

Michael Solomon MS-MVP
Windows Shell/User
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/communities/mvp.aspx
Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/


"John Bokma" wrote in message
...
Michael Solomon (MS-MVP) wrote:

Response inline below:

Thanks, but the bigger problem is that you put your sig above your
reply. Most smart Usenet clients remove the sig when you reply, and
hence, I end up with only the above line :-(

(copy + paste + fix )

"John Bokma" wrote in message
...
Michael Solomon (MS-MVP) wrote:

Second, it should be understood, chat technology was not really
designed for voice.

Define "chat technology"

Perhaps the term technology was too strong. I will leave it at this,
chat
client's were designed to use the internet for transmission of text
messages.

But the internet itself can handle arbitrary data (within certain bounds
of course).

Voice is an add-on that requires the user to interface their mic
and sound setup

Since there is a default API for handling sound in/out in most OSes,
again no problem.

If you can play music, you can hear sound coming from a voice chat
If you can record your voice, you can send it on the Internet.

and introduces a number of outside varibles not present in
the chat client. If it works, fine. If not, the user may have some
options
they can check and configure in the chat client but then there's a
whole
host of other things outside of the client they may need to check if
it's
not simply some option or selection they didn't tick within the
client.

As soon as it leaves the chat client, it's data, and it doesn't matter
anymore. Getting the audio in and out of the client is just software.

If the client was designed for this from the ground up, it would
handle
those variables. Certainly, there can be issues between any
application and
the operating system but with chat, there seems to be a great deal
more
reliance on the user setup and that leaves the door wide open to all
sorts
of possibile roadblocks.

The only road block is: making two clients connect *directly* without a
server in between. This means that they must accept incoming
connections. Which is a bit of a hassle to get working through
firewalls/NATs.

But it can be done, look at Skype. Works in more situations, better
sound quality, etc. Even the conference mode works like a dream (I
talked to my mom and brother a few days ago, Mexico - Netherlands).

Further, as in the case of "D," he wants to use chat for something for
which
it was never intended, a telephone. From what I've seen, while there
can

same with winks, nudges, and custom emoticons. Yet it's just data that
needs to go from one client to the other. The Internet was never
intended to host millions of websites, etc.

certainly be issues with Voice over IP, the solutions now being
offered are
fairly turnkey with the application handling most of the setup work
and
other than the free version of Skype completely bypasses the PC's
sound
setup in favor of the telephone.

I sincerly doubt that this has anything to do with the PC sound but much
more with: my mom has to learn how to use Skype. She is going to a
computer course. Yes, she already manages the basics, but just grabbing
a phone is way easier. And I think the same holds for a lot users, and I
mean a lot lot. Just grabbing a simple phone, keying in some access
code, and talking is way easier compared to turn on the PC, wait ...
wait... until it finished booting up, starting a voice chat application,
etc.

Even I consider a voice over the speakers more invading then a phone
conversation.

Right there, that elminates potential
issues that are inherent in chat or in this case, voice chat.

As far as I understand it, the biggest issue is getting the client
accepting incoming connections, through firewall/NAT.

I apologize for the top posting. I recognize what you politely
requested is
generally accepted as proper Usenet ettiquette but that has not been
the case within Microsoft groups on the MS server.

I read this group on "my" server, which is not a Microsoft server :-D

I have experimented with it
from time to time using OE Quote-Fix but I generally get a lot of
people
complaining when I follow that format

Try to remove everything that is no longer relevant. Most complaints are
about scrolling. People "here" often post a question, and think that the
answer is written only for them. If you carefully explain that the
messages are archived somewhere and can (and often) are read stand
alone, you sometimes can make clear that reading from top to bottom is
more natural, then scrolling down, scrolling up, read, scrolling down,
scrolling up, read, etc. Moreover, most top posters don't snip anything,
so the posting has a huge huge trail of garbage dangling under it,
wasting bandwidth, which we pay for in the end.

And all for a quick and free reply :-(

and only rarely receive such
complaints when I top post.

Again, I apologize but for now anyway, it will likely continue.

Print a random top posted message out, and try to make sense of it. You
will discover why it's annoying. Most top posters see Usenet as a help
desk, and every reply to their message as especially written for them,
almost like a private message. They prefer to have the answer on top,
since that's what they are looking for.

But it makes it way harder for people who start reading in a thread in
the middle (e.g. because they found it using Google groups).

People who insist on top posting are often egoists who only are "here"
for the free help, and contribute zilch.

It's a pitty that some well known MVPs, and I recall that P stands for
professional, serve Usenet postings as those egoists seem to prefer, not
caring about all those people who read their reply weeks, months, or
more later, and have a hard time making sense of it.

The Google archive of this group, and very likely similar MS groups are
huge collections of junk, bandwidth waste, and bad communication. In
short, unusable.

Somehow those trigger happy people prefer to repeat the same answer, on
top, over and over again instead of pointing to a excellent piece of
softwa Google groups.

Apologies for this rant, but I hope some others will rethink their
posting behaviour. In the end it will save up some bandwidth, and makes
the archives more readable, and hence, makes Usenet work.

--
John Bokma Want to record a webcam session? See:
http://johnbokma.com/messenger/capturingwebcam.html
Experienced programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

Michael Solomon (MS-MVP) wrote:

Well, I tried a compromise and that doesn't seem acceptable either.

Reread my email instead of being a bone head.


individuals who post to these newsgroups from the Microsoft web
interface,

Yeah, another piece of junk that cripples Usenet. MS is good at
crippling software, even their own stuff.

most of the posts will not be formatted according to your
desires or what is considered proper etiquette for Usenet.

Yup, because the software is junk.

I'm not trying to be obtuse or argumentative, I did after all, attempt
to compromise with you and in the case of larger posts, I do, quite
often reply inline but even that didn't work for you because of
signature placement, something I would have to change specifically any
time I replied to you.

So you spit out your garbage and let me clean it up. So, yeah, you are
more then worthy of the title MVP.

I do apologize but I guess you'll just have to place me in your
killfile if this is unacceptable to you. I'd just point out, more and
more users who reach these groups did not start out on Usenet and
often find reading bottom posted messages annoying as well.

I don't say post bottom, there is an alternative, post *inline* and
remove all unwanted lines.

--
John Bokma Want to record a webcam session? See:
http://johnbokma.com/messenger/capturingwebcam.html
Experienced programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

I see no reason for you to insult me. You were polite in your request and I
attempted to accommodate as best I could, especially given what you yourself
know to be the limitations of the application I am using.

I don't care what you think of Microsoft or their products, I may even share
some of your opinion. However, I treated you with respect and went out of
my way to try to accommodate your request.

I see nothing in anything I've said that would or should in any way provoke
the sort of personal insults in your last post.

If you have any complaints about me or things I have posted, I know the MVP
Program is always interested hearing any such complaints about the MVPs.
You can send any complaints to:


--
In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol.

Michael Solomon MS-MVP
Windows Shell/User
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/communities/mvp.aspx
Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/


"John Bokma" wrote in message
...
Michael Solomon (MS-MVP) wrote:

Well, I tried a compromise and that doesn't seem acceptable either.

Reread my email instead of being a bone head.


individuals who post to these newsgroups from the Microsoft web
interface,

Yeah, another piece of junk that cripples Usenet. MS is good at
crippling software, even their own stuff.

most of the posts will not be formatted according to your
desires or what is considered proper etiquette for Usenet.

Yup, because the software is junk.

I'm not trying to be obtuse or argumentative, I did after all, attempt
to compromise with you and in the case of larger posts, I do, quite
often reply inline but even that didn't work for you because of
signature placement, something I would have to change specifically any
time I replied to you.

So you spit out your garbage and let me clean it up. So, yeah, you are
more then worthy of the title MVP.

I do apologize but I guess you'll just have to place me in your
killfile if this is unacceptable to you. I'd just point out, more and
more users who reach these groups did not start out on Usenet and
often find reading bottom posted messages annoying as well.

I don't say post bottom, there is an alternative, post *inline* and
remove all unwanted lines.

--
John Bokma Want to record a webcam session? See:
http://johnbokma.com/messenger/capturingwebcam.html
Experienced programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

Michael Solomon (MS-MVP) wrote:

I see no reason for you to insult me. You were polite in your request
and I attempted to accommodate as best I could, especially given what
you yourself know to be the limitations of the application I am using.

First of all: I used OE for years to post on Usenet. And never mangled my
messages in the way you do.

Second: are you forced to use OE to mess up the Usenet?

If you have any complaints about me or things I have posted, I know
the MVP Program is always interested hearing any such complaints about
the MVPs. You can send any complaints to:


Yeah, Microsoft. They are not interested in Usenet, since they can't
commercially exploit it.

Why else do you think OE has well know bugs for over 5 years? Bugs that
mess up messages and waste bandwidth and in the end costs every user of
Usenet money?

--
John Bokma Want to record a webcam session? See:
http://johnbokma.com/messenger/capturingwebcam.html
Experienced programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

Michael Solomon (MS-MVP) wrote:

I see no reason for you to insult me.

You started insulting me by top posting again. Also you keep on using a
flawed Usenet client, and misplace a signature on purpose forcing other
people with a decent news client to do more work.

You insult every reader of your messages by insisting on using a piece of
junk.

So much for the P in MVP.

--
John Bokma Want to record a webcam session? See:
http://johnbokma.com/messenger/capturingwebcam.html
Experienced programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

I think Microsoft provides these groups for people to get peer support =
for their products. Providing help is the important thing, and top =
posting has always been the norm. I think inline and bottom posting is =
a total waste of time in most replies. Even when you search Google, it =
is easier with the reply at the top - much faster. I don't subscribe to =
Usenet, only Microsoft News. All my other newsgroups are web based.
--
mae=20

"Michael Solomon (MS-MVP)" wrote in message =
...
| Well, I tried a compromise and that doesn't seem acceptable either. =
You=20
| need look no further than my properties to know I'm using Outlook =
Express=20
| for posting. I'd also point out, with the heavy volume of individuals =
who=20
| post to these newsgroups from the Microsoft web interface, most of the =
posts=20
| will not be formatted according to your desires or what is considered =
proper=20
| etiquette for Usenet.
----snip---|=20
| "John Bokma" wrote in message=20
| ...
|
| "John Bokma" wrote in message
| ...

"John Bokma" wrote in message
...
Michael Solomon (MS-MVP) wrote:

I see no reason for you to insult me.

You started insulting me by top posting again. Also you keep on using a
flawed Usenet client, and misplace a signature on purpose forcing other
people with a decent news client to do more work.

You insult every reader of your messages by insisting on using a piece of
junk.

So much for the P in MVP.

--
John Bokma Want to record a webcam session? See:
http://johnbokma.com/messenger/capturingwebcam.html
Experienced programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

Well, this is an interesting conundrum. The very act of a reply from me is
by your definition an insult because of, among other things, the newsreader
I am using.

I never intended to insult you, not from the very beginning and you know
that.

Since my choice of newsreader, the method and format with which I post
(which is perfectly readable to me in both Outlook Express-technically, the
Outlook Newsreader-and Xnews) is deemed by you to be an insult, this is my
last post in this thread and I can only suggest you simply avoid my posts in
this and other Microsoft newsgroups in the future.

I never meant to insult you and I sincerely apologize if I have in any way
done so.

Michael Solomon MS-MVP
Windows Shell/User
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/communities/mvp.aspx
Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/