|
|
Mr. Ed
Froot Bat wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:25:30 GMT, Paul Heslop wrote: Matthew Maltloaf wrote: "Graham." wrote in message ... "B Hughes" wrote in message ... We do not like TOP POSTERS in uf+dm. Please learn how to post proper should you wish to return. You have been warned. And you may wish to read Brian's signature, and be grateful he won't wish his affliction upon you. I read his signature. I suspect it is not Brian's wish he be treated different from other posters, more likely your own view, you PC jobsworth. I'm sure he will speak for himself but if I remember rightly he uses a speech program and obviously, without being able to see the posts it is helpful for him if the message is at the top then he can just 'read' the relevant part. The fact that B Hughes is a troll notwithstanding... How is any of the above 'obvious'? I'm not sure that I used the phrase obvious. I actually think the response would have been out of order to anyone, never mind a blind person. I might not like top posting, but I don't go out looking for people who do. How is anyone supposed to know that a Usenet poster they don't know uses a speech program? That's why I pointed it out :O) How does him top posting affect the readability of other posts? Either way he posts, top or bottom, the other posts are still where they always were and where they should be: at the bottom, under a bunch of quoted text. I think, again if I remember rightly, he has posted this way for a long time and it is just the easiest way for him. Let me clarify something, unlike many of the people in this thread I have been around the same groups as Brian for a long time, which is the only reason I have posted in his defence. I still think the original reply was ignorant and abusive and for no good reason. Perhaps it is simply easier for him to top post. That's a different argument altogether. It's probably easier for a lot of people to top post. That doesn't mean they should do it. It's generally frowned upon because top posting makes threads messy and harder to follow. I know, you are preaching to the always have bottom posted. It's even worse when he replies because all previous posts end up below his sig separator and are discarded in replies to him, so all thread context is lost. and again, I know, but we should not, as this person has done, try to force our ways onto someone who has found the best way he can to do whatever he can, and, as I have already said, whatever the reason for the TP it doesn't excuse being spoken to like you're some sort of retard. I'm all for 'accessibility' for people with disabilities, but I don't see why just because someone has a disability they should get a free pass from criticism when they post badly. and neither should someone who is against such a practice given the excuse to abuse someone who does it. YOU may have read his sig but did the person who saw fit to chastise him? I don't think so. Why should someone be expected to read a sig? Do you read _all_ sigs from _all_ posters? Only time I read sigs is by accident when they are short one liners. A sig separator is a sign for most people to stop reading. As it is, I just read his sig. It says 'Blind user, no pics please'. It does not say, "Blind user - that is why I am top posting. Sorry." No, I know. Like I said, he is blind, he does things his way and I applaud him for that and as I also said, I find no excuse for the original reply, whether or not Brian was blind. I am sorry if i come across as making excuses for brian, he is more than capable of speaking for himself, but there was no reason for the open arrogance of the original reply. -- Paul (we break easy) ------------------------------------------------------- Stop and Look http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/ |
Mr. Ed
Bill Wright wrote:
"B Hughes" wrote in message ... We do not like TOP POSTERS in uf+dm. Please learn how to post proper should you wish to return. You have been warned. Who the **** are you, coming on here and laying the law down? 'You have been warned' my arse. Pillock. Bill xposted Bill, all over the place :O) -- Paul (we break easy) ------------------------------------------------------- Stop and Look http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/ |
Mr. Ed
"Graham." wrote:
"Woody" wrote in message ... Four Feather Falls was Gerry (Thunderbirds) Anderson. Anyone remember Phyllis Diller in The Pruitts of Southampton? C. 1966? I rather think Four Feather Falls was somewhat earlier than that - possibly 1963-ish? Having typed that I remembered that Google is your friend..... 1958!!!!!!! (well in the States anyway.) 1960 over here. Geez, I feel old. I remember FFF quite well. You no doubt will have discovered Anderson had an earlier production called The Adventures of Twizzle which I have no memory of. After FFF he did Torchy the Battery Boy thereby setting the space-travel trend. Anyone remember Space Patrol? not an Anderson series but produced by Roberta Leigh who wrote the scripts for twizzle and Torchy. -- Graham. %Profound_observation% could someone enlighten me on FFF. I have this stupid and probably very un PC song stuck in my head but can't find out where it's from, except my old brain seems to link it with FFF It went something like Old chief Binbo's in a stew, Bumalakawee he don't know just what to do, bumalakawee Happily that as much as I have clearly, and that's probably wrong :O) -- Paul (we break easy) ------------------------------------------------------- Stop and Look http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/ |
Mr. Ed
"Bill Wright" wrote in message ... "B Hughes" wrote in message ... We do not like TOP POSTERS in uf+dm. Please learn how to post proper should you wish to return. You have been warned. Who the **** are you, coming on here and laying the law down? 'You have been warned' my arse. Pillock. Bill Poor B Hughes is blind. Apart from repeating the warning to you I have also sent abuse reports to: c.c. news.giganews.net c.c. The management uk.food+drink.misc |
Mr. Ed
"Paul Heslop" wrote in message ... Froot Bat wrote: On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:25:30 GMT, Paul Heslop wrote: Matthew Maltloaf wrote: "Graham." wrote in message ... "B Hughes" wrote in message ... We do not like TOP POSTERS in uf+dm. Please learn how to post proper should you wish to return. You have been warned. And you may wish to read Brian's signature, and be grateful he won't wish his affliction upon you. I read his signature. I suspect it is not Brian's wish he be treated different from other posters, more likely your own view, you PC jobsworth. I'm sure he will speak for himself but if I remember rightly he uses a speech program and obviously, without being able to see the posts it is helpful for him if the message is at the top then he can just 'read' the relevant part. The fact that B Hughes is a troll notwithstanding... How is any of the above 'obvious'? I'm not sure that I used the phrase obvious. I actually think the response would have been out of order to anyone, never mind a blind person. I might not like top posting, but I don't go out looking for people who do. And neither do I, but should I come across this despicable practice I feel duty bound to point it out. Would you turn the other cheek if you saw a child playing in heavy traffic? How is anyone supposed to know that a Usenet poster they don't know uses a speech program? That's why I pointed it out :O) Are you a CPSO? You sound like one. How does him top posting affect the readability of other posts? Either way he posts, top or bottom, the other posts are still where they always were and where they should be: at the bottom, under a bunch of quoted text. I think, again if I remember rightly, he has posted this way for a long time and it is just the easiest way for him. Let me clarify something, unlike many of the people in this thread I have been around the same groups as Brian for a long time, which is the only reason I have posted in his defence. I still think the original reply was ignorant and abusive and for no good reason. Oh I see. It is the easiest way for him, eh? It's a good job we don't all have that attitude to life and our duties or the country would be in an even bigger mess than it is in now. Perhaps it is simply easier for him to top post. That's a different argument altogether. It's probably easier for a lot of people to top post. That doesn't mean they should do it. It's generally frowned upon because top posting makes threads messy and harder to follow. I know, you are preaching to the always have bottom posted. Then you too should be upbraiding Brian, not making excuses because of his disability. If blind people can run the London Marathon then there is nothing to stop them from not top posting. It's even worse when he replies because all previous posts end up below his sig separator and are discarded in replies to him, so all thread context is lost. and again, I know, but we should not, as this person has done, try to force our ways onto someone who has found the best way he can to do whatever he can, and, as I have already said, whatever the reason for the TP it doesn't excuse being spoken to like you're some sort of retard. Why not? You NuLiebour people are forever forcing your new rules and regulations on people who over a lifetime have found the best way they can of doing things. Your argument does not wash. I'm all for 'accessibility' for people with disabilities, but I don't see why just because someone has a disability they should get a free pass from criticism when they post badly. and neither should someone who is against such a practice given the excuse to abuse someone who does it. You mistake good and relevant advice with "abuse". As I say, you NuLiebour people are all the same whatever vrank you hold. Excuses for your cronies who don't obey the rules but woe betide any of the hoi-polloi who dare transgress. You more than likely fiddle expenses too. YOU may have read his sig but did the person who saw fit to chastise him? I don't think so. Why should someone be expected to read a sig? Do you read _all_ sigs from _all_ posters? Only time I read sigs is by accident when they are short one liners. A sig separator is a sign for most people to stop reading. As it is, I just read his sig. It says 'Blind user, no pics please'. It does not say, "Blind user - that is why I am top posting. Sorry." No, I know. Like I said, he is blind, he does things his way and I applaud him for that and as I also said, I find no excuse for the original reply, whether or not Brian was blind. And neither do I, for *no* excuses are needed. Right is right, right? I am sorry if i come across as making excuses for brian, he is more than capable of speaking for himself, but there was no reason for the open arrogance of the original reply. You were the arrogant one, but that's par for the course with your type. Just like Jack Straw, ex communist hippy and now laying down the law. You people make me sick. -- Paul (we break easy) ------------------------------------------------------- Stop and Look http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/ You will break very easily come the next election! |
Mr. Ed
"Paul Heslop" wrote in message ... Bill Wright wrote: "B Hughes" wrote in message ... We do not like TOP POSTERS in uf+dm. Please learn how to post proper should you wish to return. You have been warned. Who the **** are you, coming on here and laying the law down? 'You have been warned' my arse. Pillock. Bill xposted Bill, all over the place :O) -- Paul (we break easy) ------------------------------------------------------- Stop and Look http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/ Oh, so now you think it funny to post filthy language and abuse all over the Usenet but are quick to find excuse for a top poster just because he is blind? Double standards springs to mind. |
Mr. Ed
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 20:04:53 +0100, "Graham." wrote:
"Woody" wrote in message ... Four Feather Falls was Gerry (Thunderbirds) Anderson. Anyone remember Phyllis Diller in The Pruitts of Southampton? C. 1966? I rather think Four Feather Falls was somewhat earlier than that - possibly 1963-ish? Having typed that I remembered that Google is your friend..... 1958!!!!!!! (well in the States anyway.) 1960 over here. Geez, I feel old. I remember FFF quite well. You no doubt will have discovered Anderson had an earlier production called The Adventures of Twizzle which I have no memory of. After FFF he did Torchy the Battery Boy thereby setting the space-travel trend. Anyone remember Space Patrol? not an Anderson series but produced by Roberta Leigh who wrote the scripts for twizzle and Torchy. I remember Twizzle. Used to streach the legs and arms to the accompning ratcheting sound. The legs looked like the the twisted metal skewers. She also wrote Hoppity. I remeber the theme tune and the character her swinging on a gate! Episodes of Space Patrol I believe were posted on one of the SCFI news groups last year. I can't remember if I downloaded them. I used to like that series. never liked Torchy though. Really started for me with Supercar and Fireball XL5 though! Steve |
Mr. Ed
fs wrote:
I'm not sure that I used the phrase obvious. I actually think the response would have been out of order to anyone, never mind a blind person. I might not like top posting, but I don't go out looking for people who do. And neither do I, but should I come across this despicable practice I feel duty bound to point it out. Would you turn the other cheek if you saw a child playing in heavy traffic? not quite on the same lines, but I wouldn't shout "hey you little git get off the road and if you go on the road again I'm going to run you over!" :O) How is anyone supposed to know that a Usenet poster they don't know uses a speech program? That's why I pointed it out :O) Are you a CPSO? You sound like one. wots one of them? How does him top posting affect the readability of other posts? Either way he posts, top or bottom, the other posts are still where they always were and where they should be: at the bottom, under a bunch of quoted text. I think, again if I remember rightly, he has posted this way for a long time and it is just the easiest way for him. Let me clarify something, unlike many of the people in this thread I have been around the same groups as Brian for a long time, which is the only reason I have posted in his defence. I still think the original reply was ignorant and abusive and for no good reason. Oh I see. It is the easiest way for him, eh? It's a good job we don't all have that attitude to life and our duties or the country would be in an even bigger mess than it is in now. oh dear. it would, of course, have been easier if the OP didn't plaster this whole thing over half of usenet. he did, and it happened and someone decided to behave like a prat in response... rather than having a go at the xposter. Perhaps it is simply easier for him to top post. That's a different argument altogether. It's probably easier for a lot of people to top post. That doesn't mean they should do it. It's generally frowned upon because top posting makes threads messy and harder to follow. I know, you are preaching to the always have bottom posted. Then you too should be upbraiding Brian, not making excuses because of his disability. If blind people can run the London Marathon then there is nothing to stop them from not top posting. No, it is his way and whatever he finds that makes his life bearable is okay by me. He is a better man than I am gunga din. It's even worse when he replies because all previous posts end up below his sig separator and are discarded in replies to him, so all thread context is lost. and again, I know, but we should not, as this person has done, try to force our ways onto someone who has found the best way he can to do whatever he can, and, as I have already said, whatever the reason for the TP it doesn't excuse being spoken to like you're some sort of retard. Why not? You NuLiebour people are forever forcing your new rules and regulations on people who over a lifetime have found the best way they can of doing things. Your argument does not wash. oh good grief. If you want to find someone to fight with at least get your facts straight. I hated new tory once I saw tony B Liar's big smug tory grin. I'm all for 'accessibility' for people with disabilities, but I don't see why just because someone has a disability they should get a free pass from criticism when they post badly. and neither should someone who is against such a practice given the excuse to abuse someone who does it. You mistake good and relevant advice with "abuse". As I say, you NuLiebour people are all the same whatever vrank you hold. Excuses for your cronies who don't obey the rules but woe betide any of the hoi-polloi who dare transgress. You more than likely fiddle expenses too. get your facts straight, and if you think that reply was good advice and not abuse then you are seriously warped. just spoiling for a fight eh? YOU may have read his sig but did the person who saw fit to chastise him? I don't think so. Why should someone be expected to read a sig? Do you read _all_ sigs from _all_ posters? Only time I read sigs is by accident when they are short one liners. A sig separator is a sign for most people to stop reading. As it is, I just read his sig. It says 'Blind user, no pics please'. It does not say, "Blind user - that is why I am top posting. Sorry." No, I know. Like I said, he is blind, he does things his way and I applaud him for that and as I also said, I find no excuse for the original reply, whether or not Brian was blind. And neither do I, for *no* excuses are needed. Right is right, right? nothing is black and white. I am sorry if i come across as making excuses for brian, he is more than capable of speaking for himself, but there was no reason for the open arrogance of the original reply. You were the arrogant one, but that's par for the course with your type. Just like Jack Straw, ex communist hippy and now laying down the law. You people make me sick. You will break very easily come the next election! huh, read previous anti new tory crap as i can't be bothered. -- Paul (we break easy) ------------------------------------------------------- Stop and Look http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/ |
Mr. Ed
fs wrote:
"Paul Heslop" wrote in message ... Bill Wright wrote: "B Hughes" wrote in message ... We do not like TOP POSTERS in uf+dm. Please learn how to post proper should you wish to return. You have been warned. Who the **** are you, coming on here and laying the law down? 'You have been warned' my arse. Pillock. Bill xposted Bill, all over the place :O) -- Paul (we break easy) ------------------------------------------------------- Stop and Look http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/ Oh, so now you think it funny to post filthy language and abuse all over the Usenet but are quick to find excuse for a top poster just because he is blind? Double standards springs to mind. it isn't MY language as it isn't MY exposting. and, oh wise one, what do you think you do every time you reply to our posts? I haven't edited this, and neither did you. -- Paul (we break easy) ------------------------------------------------------- Stop and Look http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/ |
Mr. Ed
Paul Heslop wrote:
"Graham." wrote: "Woody" wrote in message ... Four Feather Falls was Gerry (Thunderbirds) Anderson. Anyone remember Phyllis Diller in The Pruitts of Southampton? C. 1966? I rather think Four Feather Falls was somewhat earlier than that - possibly 1963-ish? Having typed that I remembered that Google is your friend..... 1958!!!!!!! (well in the States anyway.) 1960 over here. Geez, I feel old. I remember FFF quite well. You no doubt will have discovered Anderson had an earlier production called The Adventures of Twizzle which I have no memory of. After FFF he did Torchy the Battery Boy thereby setting the space-travel trend. Those two ("Torchy" and "Four Feather Falls") came in the reverse order: "Torchy" was [definitely] the earler. IIRC, "Torchy" was shown at weekends (meaning that it was distributed by either ATV London or ABC), whereas "FFF" was a weekday programme (ATV Midlands, Rediffusion or Granada). |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:32 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com