OT John (the traitor, coward and troop basher) Kerry shows his colors

sharx35 wrote:
[color=blue]
>This is FUCKING 2006. Text is so, so old-fashioned. Most of us have more
>than enough bandwidth to handle more than just basic text.[/color]

Idiot. Bandwidth is NOT the issue.

"Here in Ohio" <hereinohio@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:ktrmk2tgigs7rsk6uoa3qk118jfgh1skfp@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 18:20:07 -0500, "badgolferman"
> <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Wickeddoll®, 11/2/2006,5:55:17 PM, wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Having said that, I try to take out all the extraneous crap, like
>>> header info (especially the repeat stuff), when replying. I don't
>>> demand that others do that, however.
>>>
>>> Natalie[/color]
>>
>>I agree that not snipping is more annoying than top-posting.
>>Unfortunately some of my compatriots here are the biggest offenders in
>>that case.[/color]
>
> I agree that both of these can be bad. However, I don't think they're
> as bad as using html in Usenet posts. Some people were doing that for
> a while and it made for a real mess. Luckily, that practice died soon
> after it started.
>[/color]

It's been so long since I've seen that, I'd forgotten.

Unfortunately, Web TV (Now owned by Micro$oft, I think), used to have a lot
of folks who didn't realize html is rude in NGs.

Natalie

"sharx35" <sharx35@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:klM2h.41469$H7.37009@edtnps82...[color=blue]
>
> "Here in Ohio" <hereinohio@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:ktrmk2tgigs7rsk6uoa3qk118jfgh1skfp@4ax.com...[color=green]
>> On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 18:20:07 -0500, "badgolferman"
>> <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Wickeddoll®, 11/2/2006,5:55:17 PM, wrote:
>>>
>>>> Having said that, I try to take out all the extraneous crap, like
>>>> header info (especially the repeat stuff), when replying. I don't
>>>> demand that others do that, however.
>>>>
>>>> Natalie
>>>
>>>I agree that not snipping is more annoying than top-posting.
>>>Unfortunately some of my compatriots here are the biggest offenders in
>>>that case.[/color]
>>
>> I agree that both of these can be bad. However, I don't think they're
>> as bad as using html in Usenet posts. Some people were doing that for
>> a while and it made for a real mess. Luckily, that practice died soon
>> after it started.[/color]
>
> This is FUCKING 2006. Text is so, so old-fashioned. Most of us have more
> than enough bandwidth to handle more than just basic text.
>[/color]

I do, but it takes quite a bit longer if you have lots of folks doing so at
the same time.

Also, some folks can't use anything but Google groups (If they're in a rural
area, usually), which creates yet another problem.

Natalie

In article <hihnk25habqbeqbj1q6sckqugbk3bc2h26@4ax.com>,
dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote:
[color=blue]
> sharx35 wrote:
>[color=green]
> >This is FUCKING 2006. Text is so, so old-fashioned. Most of us have more
> >than enough bandwidth to handle more than just basic text.[/color]
>
> Idiot. Bandwidth is NOT the issue.[/color]

what is it then? Attitude or just too lazy to scroll?
--

> [selected from another posting that quoted this...][color=blue]
>
> "sharx35" <sharx35@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:klM2h.41469$H7.37009@edtnps82...
>[color=green]
> > This is FUCKING 2006.[/color][/color]

Yes, it's 2006, by which time you'd hope civilised concepts such
as working along with others would have spread more widely.
[color=blue]
> Text is so, so old-fashioned.[/color]

And you set the fashion, hey? Text is quite good enough for the
vacuous cr*p that forms the average NG posting. You want actual
smilies to replace these so-very-hard-on-the-brain text smilies,
":-)" or "<g>", maybe? You t{OT}ally cannot survive without some
bright, childish colours to decorate your dull, childish ravings?
Can we send you a nice set of rainbow-hued wooden letter blocks?
Perhaps you'd like to write out your words in finest calligraphy,
then scan them and post them as high-res TIFF attachments?
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Most of us have more than enough bandwidth to handle more
> > than just basic text.[/color][/color]

"Most" being the operative word. But that's okay: you want to
add selfish HTML and other ego-stroking bandwidth-wasting cr*p,
go right ahead. You've been in my killfile for a while anyhow,
so most of it will pass me by.

Twat.
--
Andrew Stephenson

dbu, wrote:
[color=blue]
> dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> sharx35 wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>> >This is FUCKING 2006. Text is so, so old-fashioned. Most of us have more
>> >than enough bandwidth to handle more than just basic text.[/color]
>>
>> Idiot. Bandwidth is NOT the issue.[/color]
>
>what is it then?[/color]

Idiot. It's already been explained countless times by countless
people in countless newsgroups. It's got NOTHING to do with
bandwidth. Sheesh!
[color=blue]
>Attitude or just too lazy to scroll?[/color]

Idiot. Who are you referring to? Learn how to communicate.

"Andrew Stephenson" <ames@deltrak.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1162604257snz@deltrak.demon.co.uk...[color=blue][color=green]
>> [selected from another posting that quoted this...]
>>
>> "sharx35" <sharx35@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:klM2h.41469$H7.37009@edtnps82...
>>[color=darkred]
>> > This is FUCKING 2006.[/color][/color]
>
> Yes, it's 2006, by which time you'd hope civilised concepts such
> as working along with others would have spread more widely.
>[color=green]
>> Text is so, so old-fashioned.[/color]
>
> And you set the fashion, hey? Text is quite good enough for the
> vacuous cr*p that forms the average NG posting. You want actual
> smilies to replace these so-very-hard-on-the-brain text smilies,
> ":-)" or "<g>", maybe? You t{OT}ally cannot survive without some
> bright, childish colours to decorate your dull, childish ravings?
> Can we send you a nice set of rainbow-hued wooden letter blocks?
> Perhaps you'd like to write out your words in finest calligraphy,
> then scan them and post them as high-res TIFF attachments?
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > Most of us have more than enough bandwidth to handle more
>> > than just basic text.[/color][/color]
>
> "Most" being the operative word. But that's okay: you want to
> add selfish HTML and other ego-stroking bandwidth-wasting cr*p,
> go right ahead. You've been in my killfile for a while anyhow,
> so most of it will pass me by.
>
> Twat.[/color]

Suck dick, ***got.

[color=blue]
> --
> Andrew Stephenson
>[/color]

"dizzy" <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:hihnk25habqbeqbj1q6sckqugbk3bc2h26@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> sharx35 wrote:
>[color=green]
>>This is FUCKING 2006. Text is so, so old-fashioned. Most of us have more
>>than enough bandwidth to handle more than just basic text.[/color]
>
> Idiot. Bandwidth is NOT the issue.
>[/color]

Listen up, you ***got terrorist-loving **** sucker. YOU or any other left
wing shithole licker will NOT tell ME what the FUCK the issue is. FO and die
a slow, miserable HIV death.

On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 18:38:42 -0500, "Wickeddoll®"
<wickeddoll1958diespammersdie@yahoo.com> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> This is FUCKING 2006. Text is so, so old-fashioned. Most of us have more
>> than enough bandwidth to handle more than just basic text.
>>[/color]
>
>I do, but it takes quite a bit longer if you have lots of folks doing so at
>the same time.[/color]

I feel there is no need for it. The important thing on Usenet is what
people say, not how many colors they say it in.

The web forums let people play around with formatting and stuff, and
the result is often hard to read. (I've got this rule that anyone who
writes in giant pink letters doesn't have anything worthwhile to say.)
:-)

Some of the things that people do to their e-mail and web sites is
also really hard to read. I guess bad taste knows no bounds.

Hi
The Pharmacy I use for ALL of my prescription drugs is at
'viagra' ([url]http://viagra.ir.pl[/url])
'buy viagra online' ([url]http://buy-viagra-online.cq.bz[/url])
'buy viagra' ([url]http://buy-viagra.ir.pl[/url])
'Cheap Cialis' ([url]http://cheap-cialis.ir.pl[/url])
'Nikolaev' ([url]http://nikolaev.100free.com[/url])
'Mykolayiv' ([url]http://nikolaev.100free.com/Mykolayiv.html[/url])
'Nikolaev' ([url]http://nikolaev.100free.com/Nikolaev.html[/url])
'Nikolaev Ukraine' ([url]http://nikolaev.100free.com/Nikolaev-Ukraine.html[/url])

'Nikolaev' ([url]http://nikolaev.100free.com/index.html[/url])
G'night


--
Bploomut
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bploomut's Profile: [url]http://www.autostalk.com/m92[/url]
View this thread: [url]http://www.autostalk.com/t388438[/url]

Hello
<a href=http://viagraonlinechi.forum-on.de><h2>Buy Viagra From Top
Online Pharmacy</a>


G'night


--
ibraichev-pavel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ibraichev-pavel's Profile: [url]http://www.autostalk.com/m95[/url]
View this thread: [url]http://www.autostalk.com/t388438[/url]