OT - Wow, how to piss everyone off in a single post!

You guys are hilarious. That post should have read. How to ignore future dated posts. Did ANY of you actually take a moment to check the web page contents beforehand? If you had, you'd have noticed that it's not about bottom or top posting of the message text in the message body! An obviously politically sensitive subject. A whole other can of worms I might add, one I've obviously opened. Rather it's about a method of ignoring future dated posts. It has nothing to do with the message content, just how to setup OE to hide the message from showing up in your list of messages IF it was posted by a computer who's date was set to some time in the future. Future dated posts appear at the top of the list, IF you sort the list by date in Outlook Express. Something a lot of us do. Who wants to see the same post for a month or more! Several people asked me to write this up, so I did.

The link is dead. "Kevin�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:wxI8b.9703$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> You guys are hilarious. That post should have read. > How to ignore future dated posts. > > Did ANY of you actually take a moment to check the web page contents > beforehand? > > If you had, you'd have noticed that it's not about bottom or top posting

of > the message text in the message body! An obviously politically sensitive > subject. A whole other can of worms I might add, one I've obviouslyopened.

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > Rather it's about a method of ignoring future dated posts. It has nothing > to do with the message content, just how to setup OE to hide the message > from showing up in your list of messages IF it was posted by a computer > who's date was set to some time in the future. > > Future dated posts appear at the top of the list, IF you sort the list by > date in Outlook Express. Something a lot of us do. Who wants to see the > same post for a month or more! > > Several people asked me to write this up, so I did. > > > >

SNORE. Alanb

So, until you got blasted for your mistake, you thought top posting was 'future' posting, which might be more accurately referred to as 'dated' posting. I believe the default sorting method in OE is 'old to new' from top to bottom so I'm curious as to how you made a connection between 'future' and 'top' posting. Btw, on usenet, it's more common for people to move their computer date 'back' into the past so the message will appear 'before' others. I really don't see the logic of what you're trying to do. May I ask how old you are? This is just way to easy and I'm starting to feel a bit guilty. On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 17:33:16 GMT, "Kevin�" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

>You guys are hilarious. That post should have read. >How to ignore future dated posts. > >Did ANY of you actually take a moment to check the web page contents >beforehand? > >If you had, you'd have noticed that it's not about bottom or top posting of >the message text in the message body! An obviously politically sensitive >subject. A whole other can of worms I might add, one I've obviously opened. > >Rather it's about a method of ignoring future dated posts. It has nothing >to do with the message content, just how to setup OE to hide the message >from showing up in your list of messages IF it was posted by a computer >who's date was set to some time in the future. > >Future dated posts appear at the top of the list, IF you sort the list by >date in Outlook Express. Something a lot of us do. Who wants to see the >same post for a month or more! > >Several people asked me to write this up, so I did.

I do not understand you guys.. So the guy showed you how to do something, if you do not want to use what he showed you how to do, then frickin ignore it Its not like he is asking you to buy anything. Quit causing issues just for the sake of doing it "Alan Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > So, until you got blasted for your mistake, you thought top posting was > 'future' posting, which might be more accurately referred to as 'dated' > posting. I believe the default sorting method in OE is 'old to new' from > top to bottom so I'm curious as to how you made a connection between > 'future' and 'top' posting. > > Btw, on usenet, it's more common for people to move their computer > date 'back' into the past so the message will appear 'before' others. I > really don't see the logic of what you're trying to do. May I ask how old > you are? This is just way to easy and I'm starting to feel a bit guilty. > > On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 17:33:16 GMT, "Kevin�"

<[email hidden]>

Quoted text (9 lines)

> wrote: > > >You guys are hilarious. That post should have read. > >How to ignore future dated posts. > > > >Did ANY of you actually take a moment to check the web page contents > >beforehand? > > > >If you had, you'd have noticed that it's not about bottom or top posting

of > >the message text in the message body! An obviously politically sensitive > >subject. A whole other can of worms I might add, one I've obviouslyopened. > > > >Rather it's about a method of ignoring future dated posts. It hasnothing

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >to do with the message content, just how to setup OE to hide the message > >from showing up in your list of messages IF it was posted by a computer > >who's date was set to some time in the future. > > > >Future dated posts appear at the top of the list, IF you sort the list by > >date in Outlook Express. Something a lot of us do. Who wants to see the > >same post for a month or more! > > > >Several people asked me to write this up, so I did. >

"Cliff Roman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:KnJ8b.332586$Oz4.121505@rwcrnsc54... > I do not understand you guys.. > > So the guy showed you how to do something, if you do not want to use whathe

Quoted text (7 lines)

> showed you how to do, then frickin ignore it > > Its not like he is asking you to buy anything. > > Quit causing issues just for the sake of doing it > >

If they couldn't flame him, insult his choice of newsreader as not "geek" enough, and rant quite a bit - it wouldn't really be Usenet would it? <g> Ken

Don't worry about it. Your post rubbed a few people the wrong way, including me until I understood what you were trying to do. Big deal. Life goes on. There are much more important things to worry about than this. "Kevin�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:wxI8b.9703$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> You guys are hilarious. That post should have read. > How to ignore future dated posts. > > Did ANY of you actually take a moment to check the web page contents > beforehand? > > If you had, you'd have noticed that it's not about bottom or top posting

of > the message text in the message body! An obviously politically sensitive > subject. A whole other can of worms I might add, one I've obviouslyopened.

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > Rather it's about a method of ignoring future dated posts. It has nothing > to do with the message content, just how to setup OE to hide the message > from showing up in your list of messages IF it was posted by a computer > who's date was set to some time in the future. > > Future dated posts appear at the top of the list, IF you sort the list by > date in Outlook Express. Something a lot of us do. Who wants to see the > same post for a month or more! > > Several people asked me to write this up, so I did. > > > >

"Alan Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > So, until you got blasted for your mistake, you thought top posting was > 'future' posting, which might be more accurately referred to as 'dated' > posting. I believe the default sorting method in OE is 'old to new' from > top to bottom so I'm curious as to how you made a connection between > 'future' and 'top' posting. Actually I honestly forgot about the other meaning of top posting. I haven't seen a debate on that one in years. My mistake. The connection. By clicking the sent column, it sorts them from new to old, or "top" to bottom. That way you don't have to scroll to the bottom of a couple hundred messages to read the newest posts. They are already there at the top waiting to be read. > > Btw, on usenet, it's more common for people to move their computer > date 'back' into the past so the message will appear 'before' others. That would depend on the reader wouldn't it. > I really don't see the logic of what you're trying to do. Logic explained above. > May I ask how old > you are? Sure you may ask. Don't expect an answer.

"Kevin�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:wxI8b.9703$[email hidden]... > You guys are hilarious. That post should have read. > How to ignore future dated posts. > > Did ANY of you actually take a moment to check the web page contents > beforehand? We shouldn't have to.... *you* made the FAQ, *you* should have done your research. > Future dated posts appear at the top of the list, IF you sort the list by > date in Outlook Express. Something a lot of us do. Who wants to see the > same post for a month or more! I thread and sort by subject - read messages are deleted... IMO, it's the most logical way to do it. > Several people asked me to write this up, so I did. And started a new thread when a follow-up in the existing thread would have sufficed. Perhaps your FAQ should be what NOT to do... KK

You didn't piss me off off. I thought it was quite entertaining though :>) "Kevin�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:wxI8b.9703$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> You guys are hilarious. That post should have read. > How to ignore future dated posts. > > Did ANY of you actually take a moment to check the web page contents > beforehand? > > If you had, you'd have noticed that it's not about bottom or top posting

of > the message text in the message body! An obviously politically sensitive > subject. A whole other can of worms I might add, one I've obviouslyopened.

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > Rather it's about a method of ignoring future dated posts. It has nothing > to do with the message content, just how to setup OE to hide the message > from showing up in your list of messages IF it was posted by a computer > who's date was set to some time in the future. > > Future dated posts appear at the top of the list, IF you sort the list by > date in Outlook Express. Something a lot of us do. Who wants to see the > same post for a month or more! > > Several people asked me to write this up, so I did. > > > >

If you're about 14 as I guess, or at least still in high school, I suggest you keep trying. You have promise and may some day provide 'intelligent' and informative online user guides. However, if you're older than I suspect, you're a 'total idiot'. Kevin, you could not have bungled your efforts in this project any worse. At this point, and even though it's only regarding Outlook Express, you have absolutely no business telling others how to do 'anything' on usenet. I have never seen someone stumble into a group and make such a complete fool of oneself as you did and I've been on usenet for over ten years. Btw, remove that stupid copyright symbol from you name. It makes you look like a child. On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 23:24:37 GMT, "Kevin�" <[email hidden]> wrote: >By clicking the sent column, it sorts them from new to old, or "top" to >bottom. That way you don't have to scroll to the bottom of a couple hundred >messages to read the newest posts. They are already there at the top >waiting to be read.

The thing that got bungled was my ISPs FTP server. Which required that I repost the correct URL. I agreed that the subject line was misleading and I've already apologized for that. As mentioned it's been years since I've seen a top/bottom debate. That's where you jumped in and are still going on about it. You call me a child, the only one behaving like a child at the moment is you. Insisting on putdowns, application bigotry, etc. You also have no business telling me what and where I can post. You've been on Usenet for ten years, big fat hairy whoop. I've got several years on that. Remember these guys. http://www.crynwr.com/ I'll leave my "handle" in any shape and form I please. If you don't like it, well tough, don't read it! It's that easy. What have YOU done for this or any other community in that 10 years beside argue over minutiae?

(hehheh-heh) Son, after the depth of inexperience and ignorance you have so sadly shown, there's absolutely no way you can convince anyone you've been on the Internet 'or even on a computer' for ten plus years. You're pathetically making an even bigger fool of yourself. Hopefully you'll learn a lesson from this ordeal but please, even though it's just people online, don't resort to lying if you expect others to 'believe' and respect your online guidance. Lying just further shows your age. On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 16:58:44 GMT, "Kevin�" <[email hidden]> wrote: >You've been on Usenet for ten years, big fat hairy whoop. I've got several >years on that.

LOL. I know the truth and it's somewhat easy to find no adays. So you can go ahead and call me names all you want if it makes you feel better. I could just have easily said you were one too. I certainly didn't feel the need to beat my chest about the length of my exposure to the Internet, like you did.

You most certainly did. In fact, you beat your chest and boasted that you've been on the Internet 'years' longer than I have. Don't you remember bragging, "I've got several years on that." It was only a couple hours ago. Good grief Kevin, I sincerely hope you are a kid, otherwise this would be way too sad and pathetic. Every time you open your mouth you say something stupid. For once in this tragic ordeal or yours, do something right and just shut up. I can hardly bear to watch anymore of this. On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 18:49:25 GMT, "Kevin�" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I certainly didn't feel the need to beat my chest about the length of my >exposure to the Internet, like you did.

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 19:22:25 GMT, Alan Jones <[email hidden]> top posted: >Good grief Kevin, I sincerely hope you are a kid, otherwise this >would be way too sad and pathetic. Every time you open your >mouth you say something stupid. For once in this tragic ordeal >or yours, do something right and just shut up. I can hardly bear >to watch anymore of this. >Maybe Kevin (I hope I don't get sued for copywrite infringement) could write you a tutorial on how to use a killfile so you don't have to endure him any more :-) -- Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. Help make Usenet a better place: Check groups.google.com before asking a question. Don't top post. Trim your messages to include only relevent text.

Actually I've written an instructional article on filtering with Forte Agent and yes it has just about come to doing that. Early on, his constant blunders were comical but it has since turned incredibly pathetic. I started to feel bad for being so hard on the kid but, unless he just finally shuts up, he deserves everything he's getting. On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 20:31:44 +0100, spamtrap@localhost wrote: >Maybe Kevin (I hope I don't get sued for copywrite infringement) could >write you a tutorial on how to use a killfile so you don't have to >endure him any more :-)

Only after you bragged about it. Like I give a hoot, like it would impress me or make me "shut up". So I guess it's OK for you to mention things like that and not for others then. I rarely drag that up anyhow, it's old hat. Not to mention old technology. DOS, Himem tweaking, jumpers for IRQs, packet drivers, 1200 baud dial-up, Trumpet Winsock all that was fun. However I wouldn't trade that for what I work with and use now. Other then the SPAM, Viruses and Worms, it's been pretty good to-date. I personally can't wait to see what the next 10+ years bring. Sad and pathetic on your part maybe, like how you're so curious to know my age. What's up with that? Got a thing for teenagers?? ;-) Tragic ordeal .. LOL ..

That sounds convincing and I fondly remember doing those things but there's no way I can possibly believe you. No one can be on usenet that long and still be so amazingly dumb as you have been these past few days. You use a copyright symbol with your name and didn't even know what top posting is until just yesterday. Nope, sorry, I just can't buy it Kev. Go tell Dad his help with the reply didn't work... On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 20:17:01 GMT, "Kevin�" <[email hidden]> wrote: >DOS, Himem tweaking, jumpers for IRQs, packet drivers, 1200 baud dial-up, >Trumpet Winsock all that was fun.

Alan, I don't think you'd believe a good time if it landed on your face and started to wiggle, let alone anything else. "Alan Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > That sounds convincing and I fondly remember doing those things butthere's > no way I can possibly believe you.