Re: Don't buy into pre-orders for Apple II products

[nyder <nyder.23@gmail.com>]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 9:22:57 AM UTC-7, Michael Black wrote:
> On Tue, 7 May 2013, Raymond Wiker wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes:
> 
> >
> 
> >> On Mon, 6 May 2013, Conrad wrote:
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> You are right that there is no blame on anyone but myself and others
> 
> >>> are not at fault for complaining that things are behind schedule or
> 
> >>> that I was sporradic with communication. I do find it interesting
> 
> >>> that you say I am the only one profiting from this venture... For
> 
> >>> one I already said I'm taking a small loss on each card but for the
> 
> >>> sake of arguement let's say I'm breaking even. That's not taking a
> 
> >>> profit... Even putting finance aside though, wouldn't the community
> 
> >>> profit from new accelerators being available? I'm not trying to get
> 
> >>> into an arguement with you or provoke you, I'm just trying to
> 
> >>> understand why you'd say that...
> 
> >>>
> 
> >> This isn't google.
> 
> >>
> 
> >> It's not obvious who you are talking to, since you haven't bothered
> 
> >> quoting whoever you are replying to.  Just because at google
> 
> >> everything is on the same page and likely in threaded sequence doesn't
> 
> >> mean everyone sees it that way.
> 
> >>
> 
> >> You just come across as talking to yourself when you don't quote.
> 
> >>
> 
> >>    Michael
> 
> >
> 
> > Ever heard of the "In-Reply-To:" header? Any worthy NNTP client should be
> 
> > able to locate the parent post using this header.
> 
> >
> 
> Why should I have to go looking?  The idiots using google can't be 
> 
> bothered quoting, yet there's a reason why quoting has been a part of 
> 
> usenet practically forever.
> 
> 
> 
> It used to be you could tell who was posting from WebTV, they too lacked 
> 
> any quoting.  My reaction to that was to ignore such messages, dimiss them 
> 
> as village idiots (and it never helped that the same non-quoting posters 
> 
> often seemed to post quite a bit yet have very little to say).
> 
> 
> 
> Now it's happening with google.  And it's made worse because not only is 
> 
> it easy for people using google to reply without quoting, but google still 
> 
> hasn't fixed the bug that allows replies to messages older than 30 days.
> 
> 
> 
> So we get replies to 15 year old messages and without quoting there is 
> 
> absolutely no context.  The only reason it's easy to tell such messages is 
> 
> because they aren't replying to a message that currently exists.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm tired of the idiots using google.  They complain about spam by 
> 
> changing subject headers and then leaving the message empty, which works 
> 
> fine if you're viewing usenet at google but it's only trash for the rest 
> 
> of us.  This is on top of the fact that the spam they see may only be at 
> 
> google, with the good newsservers already keeping out that spam.  I'm 
> 
> tired of seeing these replies to old messages, real cluelessness on the 
> 
> part of the posters who reply to old messages.  I'm tired of seeing 
> 
> messages that don't use any quoting and it's now pretty much coming from 
> 
> google.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm tired of how google gets to define usenet.
> 
> 
> 
>    Michael

I'm using Google (Reader, for what, 2 more months?), I just hit reply and look at wtf is above me?   The previous message.   While I understand your frustration that not everyone is Internet Savoy, I'm not sure what you are talking about.