Maker Pro
Maker Pro

No More Oil.

D

Dave

Jan 1, 1970
0
Read my words no more oil (as we know it now) in 5-15 years...

And the biggest consumer is ......the US of A, and has the most to
loose..........WW3 etc etc

3rd would countries have the least to loose, so if you live in a mud hit in
Africa - it'll have little or no impact.
 
M

Michael Baugh

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hmmm.
Bottom posters. Scroll all the way to the end to discover that the poster
did a "me, too", or "LOL" addition. Without snippage.
Top poster-You just read it, without scrolling.
 
W

Willcox

Jan 1, 1970
0
Dave said:
Read my words no more oil (as we know it now) in 5-15 years...

They've been saying that for 30 years. There's plenty of oil, it just
keeps getting harder to reach.
And the biggest consumer is ......the US of A, and has the most to
loose..........WW3 etc etc

Coal can be converted to gasoline at about $5 to $8 a gallon, and there
are vast coal fields in the USA. We aren't going to suddenly run out one
day, but the price will keep going up.
 
M

m II

Jan 1, 1970
0
Willcox said:
Coal can be converted to gasoline at about $5 to $8 a gallon, and there
are vast coal fields in the USA. We aren't going to suddenly run out one
day, but the price will keep going up.

Benzine is easier. It's also a serious carcinogen. Most of Eastern
communist Europe was blessed with this stuff for years. They had
(have?) oil/gas premix right at the pumps for all the two stroke vehicles.




mike
 
M

Michael Baugh

Jan 1, 1970
0
Yes, you were, but at another time, I could have overlooked it.
 
G

Gymy Bob

Jan 1, 1970
0
Usenet rules dictate top posting for readability

Michael Baugh said:
Hmmm.
Bottom posters. Scroll all the way to the end to discover that the poster
did a "me, too", or "LOL" addition. Without snippage.
Top poster-You just read it, without scrolling.

hit
 
M

Michael Baugh

Jan 1, 1970
0
Ya know, when the internet was created, it was pretty much a
bunch of university and military types, accustomed to making their comments
after the prior ones. So they advocated bottom posting. Times change, but
some people refuse to acknowledge those changes, or other modifications that
come along with those changes.
Clarence seems to be such an individual, and that's really quite all right.
Fact is that standard usenet protocol is to bottom post, and to practice
excellent snippage. If there are comments about different segments of a
post, interspersing those comments.
http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/usenet/guide/faq_topp.html
The example given is that you need to see the question before you're given
the answer. But such a scenario is highly atypical. More often, the original
poster was telling about a car that got 100 miles on a tank of compressed
air, and the responses within the thread refer to it. So within the confines
of a newsgroup such as this one, I see top posting to be more suitable,
rather than having to scroll to a bottom posting. Especially one by
Clarence, who seems to have a compulsion to see the rest of the world as
"dumb".
 
G

Gymy Bob

Jan 1, 1970
0
Let him produce the authentic UseNet rule and we can all change our ways
back to the 70s when we ftp'd our messages off the server.
 
I'm part of a forum frequented by blind and poor-visioned folks who
requested top posting so their screen-readers didn't give them immense
amounts of old verbage before the interesting stuff.

If my reply can stand alone, and is related to the previous writing,
I will top post.

If answering a question, I will edit the OP down to the salient part
and post in the stream of writing.

I think parroting an entire post and adding an inane comment at the
bottom is an inconsiderate waste of bandwidth, particularly to
overseas members who are likely to pay time charges for this service.

Newsgroups: alt.energy.homepower
Ya know, when the internet was created, it was pretty much a
bunch of university and military types, accustomed to making their
comments after the prior ones. So they advocated bottom posting.
[rest snipped]


Tom Willmon
near Mountainair, (mid) New Mexico, USA

Net-Tamer V 1.12.0 - Registered
 
G

Gymy Bob

Jan 1, 1970
0
Blah..blah blah. I have seen all the opinions both ways. Let's see some real
Usenet rules or let's not have this foolishness from the old boys clubbers.
 
G

Gymy Bob

Jan 1, 1970
0
This is why we top post. For consideration of people on slow speed modems
and cell lines in Europe also. Most nesbrowsers worth their salt can limit
the download of long posts and the bottom posts never get seen at all.

It really come down to..if you want people to read your post at all then top
post. If you don't care, turn off the computer and don't bother.

I'm part of a forum frequented by blind and poor-visioned folks who
requested top posting so their screen-readers didn't give them immense
amounts of old verbage before the interesting stuff.

If my reply can stand alone, and is related to the previous writing,
I will top post.

If answering a question, I will edit the OP down to the salient part
and post in the stream of writing.

I think parroting an entire post and adding an inane comment at the
bottom is an inconsiderate waste of bandwidth, particularly to
overseas members who are likely to pay time charges for this service.

Newsgroups: alt.energy.homepower
Ya know, when the internet was created, it was pretty much a
bunch of university and military types, accustomed to making their
comments after the prior ones. So they advocated bottom posting.
[rest snipped]


Tom Willmon
near Mountainair, (mid) New Mexico, USA

Net-Tamer V 1.12.0 - Registered
 
M

m II

Jan 1, 1970
0
Gymy said:
Blah..blah blah. I have seen all the opinions both ways. Let's see some real
Usenet rules or let's not have this foolishness from the old boys clubbers.



NO!

Is top posting conducive to a normal, proper reading order?
 
M

m II

Jan 1, 1970
0
Gymy said:
Blah..blah blah. I have seen all the opinions both ways. Let's see some real
Usenet rules or let's not have this foolishness from the old boys clubbers.



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 on usenet and in e-mail?




anon
 
G

Gymy Bob

Jan 1, 1970
0
I read from the top down and since threading was invented by any decent
newsreader I don't need to read the same crap over and over again. Be more
considerate to your readers. You are in the dark ages with this.
 
M

m II

Jan 1, 1970
0
Gymy said:
I read from the top down and since threading was invented by any decent
newsreader I don't need to read the same crap over and over again. Be more
considerate to your readers. You are in the dark ages with this.


The rest of us REALLY read from the top down, but have it your way. I
don't have to read your posts...I can get 'stubborn for it's own sake'
anywhere. You may also consider checking out what 'threading' means
when referring to newsreaders.




mike
 
R

Robert Morien

Jan 1, 1970
0
m II said:
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 on usenet and in e-mail?




anon

That should be

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?


I

p
r
e
f
e
r

t
o

s
i
d
e

p
o
s
t

b
u
t

g
e
t

i
n
t
o

s
e
n
s
e
l
e
s
s

d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
s

o
n

w
h
e
t
h
e
r

I

s
h
o
u
l
d

l
e
f
t
-
p
o
s
t

o
r

r
i
g
h
t
-
p
o
s
t
 
Top