OT: To clear up the UNDECLARED confusion

It is not cancelled. It is on hiatus.

Sounds familiar...

only I don't like Undeclared.

i love undeclared

how the fuck could you not like Undeclared?! That's like saying you don't like Family Guy! "SubDrag" wrote in message news:KNom8.4093$[email]... Sounds familiar...

only I don't like Undeclared.

On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:31:00 -0500 "SuperBoz" spoke these words of wonder:

Please explain what you mean by that. And also please do not post in HTML it gets rather annoying.

hmph! written with M$, no wonder it didn't work:

Essentially this guy wrote in an Arial Font font size 2(big), no bold ( <b> tags) supprisingly, I think what screwed it up is the <DIV> tags,

it supposed to be like <div align="CENTER">text here</DIV> this centers the text.....

I personally use Dreamweaver to make pages, cleaner code.....

"El_Durango" wrote in message news:[email]...

href="news:KNom8.4093$[email]">news:KNo m8.4093$[email]</A>...</DIV>Sounds

href="news:Eoom8.21427$[email]">news:Eoom8.21 427$[email]</A>...<BR>&gt;

FIrst off, I am not posting is HTML. Just text.

What I mean:

Well Undeclared and Family are great shows, so not liking one and liking the other, is wrong. That's right, I'm telling you what to do. How you like them apples? "El_Durango" wrote in message news:[email]... On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:31:00 -0500 "SuperBoz" spoke these words of wonder:

  Please explain what you mean by that.
  And also please do not post in HTML it gets rather annoying.
  --
  *****************************************************************
  Being a single mother is hard, but the real challenge is to have
  a baby that's addicted to crack. -Meg Griffin
  *****************************************************************

Yes you are. You may not realize it, since Outlook Express and other fancy-schmancy email clients will send out your email as HTML without asking (or perhaps you set it that way once and didn't realize it was for good). On newsgroups, HTML is very, very annoying. Then again, so is top-posting, which Outlook Express seems to encourage, damn their oily hides.

-- wb

i don't understand why top posting is annoying. you'd rather scroll all the way down to the bottom of a long message just to see what someone wrote in response?

Then the long message should never have been completely quoted. If it's not directly relevant to the response, such as your words above, then delete it. By bottom posting, such as I have done, a person can read the post top to bottom just like reading is done everywhere else, like books.

As for being able to see what the entire conversation was about, I can just check a previous post. There is no need to include the entire thread below like most top-posters do.

"Bao H. Lammy" wrote:

Yes!

Yes!

Yes! Threads, like time, should move forward in sequence!

THANK you! Well said.

The problem is also that Outlook (and Outlook Express) automatically appends the entire previous message (and their entire previous messages, and so on) to a reply in such a way that it looks like it's suppose to stand on its own, so people fall into the trap of just typing in their out-of-context replies at the top and leaving it to the unfortunate recipients to sift through the entire previous message to figure out what they're replying to. Argh!!!!!

-- wb

On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 18:43:52 GMT, Cambie wrote:

And you would rather not know which section of the article the reader is replying to in an indepth thread?

Besides, bottom-posting has been the standard for decades so why it should change for the recent internet-newbie flood god knows.

"Stan" wrote in message news:[email]...

Then how come I don't see all that HTML. It seems your browser is fucked up.

But anyway, I went to options and yes, posting via HTML was selected (damn m$) and I unselected it. Sorry for the prob!

SuperBoz wrote:

Ah, but you're assuming everybody uses "browsers" (e.g. graphical-interface thingies attached to Netscape, M$, etc.). Some folks use text-only terminal-type programs (PINE, etc.), and HTML may or may not show correctly there.

(Now, to the folks who insist on going out of their way to top-post and letting Outlook's reply "feature" write their replies for them: Would you have understood this message if it had been top-posted, all of the quotes were in reverse, and every quote included the entire message including the HTML tags?! Well, maybe for a thread as terse as this one, but I hope you understand the point.)

-- wb

"Warren Bloom" wrote in message news:[email]...

there.

Gee, people still use text-only terminal-type programs? Sorry dude, I apologize, but "live in the now", lol.

(OMG is he bottom posting?)

it's on the *nix OS

Fine, if you're gonna be rude, then I'm gonna send in HTML...and top post. So if anyone else doesn't like it, BLAME STAN! "Stan" wrote in message news:[email]... On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 23:51:52 GMT, "SuperBoz" wrote:

It's not a text-only terminal-type program. As I said in another post, it's a news reader, specific to it's purpose. It doesn't support HTML, which means I don't have to worry about script virii running while I'm reading news articles. Nor does it allow me to create messages which are 40 lines long, but only took me 2 lines to write. I also don't have to worry about browser windows popping up all over the place with porn spam, and I don't have to sit here and wait for a message to download because some self-absorbed dumb fuck wants me to listen to a midi version of "Puppy Love" while he throws a picture of his stupid dog on my screen. HTML is for the web. Usenet is, has been, and (IMO) always will be based around text posts.

What amazes me is the douchbags like yourself who think I (and many others) are "behind the times", only because we don't want to deal with the inconveniences, delays, and security pitfalls created by clueless retards like yourself who ignorantly post that HTML bullshit.

Want to have some real fun? Go make an HTML post over in alt.html. After all, it's an HTML group, right? They *should* love your post. Let us know how it goes. <snicker>

"SuperBoz" wrote:

So, what have we learned from this... that HTML on Usenet is supported by whiny-ass childish little brats?

First clue: no one beside yourself is ever to blame for what you do.

I want to be PC PC (sorry for the pun). Plain text send options are either MIME or uuencode. Which format is preferrable IYHO ?

On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 17:31:22 GMT, "SubDrag" wrote:

Oh then lets cancel it.