Kodak re-enters inkjet biz

"Arthur Entlich" wrote in message
newsTXEh.1154351$R63.1129798@pd7urf1no
DRS wrote:
"Arthur Entlich" wrote in message
news:RQFEh.1143240$5R2.276193@pd7urf3no

[...]

OMG, civilization has rotted to its very core. Top posting is
responsible for global warming, war, and the decline of personkind.

No-one who has complained about top-posting has said it is the most
important thing in the world. Neither is it unimportant. Pointing
out that selfish and inconsiderate behaviour is selfish and
inconsiderate is a mere statement of fact. As usual, it is those so
criticised who respond with indignant hyperbole, deliberately
overstating the case as a means of belittlement since they have no
cogent argument.

You are the person who has proposed and assumed that the behaviour of,
and therefore the people who take part in top posting, are "selfish
and inconsiderate" and you accuse me hyperbole?

Yes.

There is no doubt that there are several, like yourself, who have a
"problem" with top posting, but that hardly makes it selfish,
inconsiderate, or "worth fighting over". The vast majority of people,
whether they have a preference or not, seem to have the basic decency
and logic to live with either form of message construction without
using bullying techniques to try to alter behaviour by suggesting not
only that a person who such a method is "selfish and inconsiderate"
but even further, that indeed a whole corporation should be boycotted
on such a basis.

I am not measekite. Perhaps if you retained the logical flow inherent in
conformance with Usenet standards and guidelines you'd find it easier to
track who has said what.

[...]

At this point, I don't wish to engage further in your little war
against differences in the world. Although I consider bottom posting
somewhat inefficient, usually wasteful of time and effort, and
somewhat illogical in this type of communication,

You are simply wrong. Putting the question before the answer and destroying
the logical flow is inefficient, wasteful and illogical.

"Arthur Entlich" wrote in message
news:9BYEh.1138252$1T2.1033511@pd7urf2no
DRS wrote:

[...]

This is not a private email. This is Usenet. It is a public forum
and everything you post can be read by anybody and everybody, so if
you top-post because one person likes it that way you are screwing
everybody else.

[...]

Oh, but I love self-righteous indignation. Are you so sure you speak
for "everybody else"?

Yes.

"Ron Baird" wrote in message
. com

[...]

I repsonded to Art in the way he wanted and will continue to do so.
For others, as in this case, I will post at the bottom of the message
by popular request.

This is not a private email. This is Usenet. It is a public forum and
everything you post can be read by anybody and everybody, so if you top-post
because one person likes it that way you are screwing everybody else.

I got a great idea. Make everybody happy. Post a reply both at the
top and at the bottom. How can anybody complain about that. The reaER
gets a choice.


DRS wrote:
"Ron Baird" wrote in message
. com

[...]


I repsonded to Art in the way he wanted and will continue to do so.
For others, as in this case, I will post at the bottom of the message
by popular request.


This is not a private email. This is Usenet. It is a public forum and
everything you post can be read by anybody and everybody, so if you top-post
because one person likes it that way you are screwing everybody else.




I got a great idea. Make everybody happy. Post a reply both at the
top and at the bottom. How can anybody complain about that. The reaER
gets a choice.

DRS wrote:

"Arthur Entlich" wrote in message
news:9BYEh.1138252$1T2.1033511@pd7urf2no

DRS wrote:


[...]


This is not a private email. This is Usenet. It is a public forum
and everything you post can be read by anybody and everybody, so if
you top-post because one person likes it that way you are screwing
everybody else.


[...]


Oh, but I love self-righteous indignation. Are you so sure you speak
for "everybody else"?


Yes.


Um mm...sorry pal but you don't speak for me!
You speak only for yourself.
Frank

"Frank" wrote in message

DRS wrote:
"Arthur Entlich" wrote in message
news:9BYEh.1138252$1T2.1033511@pd7urf2no

[...]

Oh, but I love self-righteous indignation. Are you so sure you speak
for "everybody else"?

Yes.

Um mm...sorry pal but you don't speak for me!
You speak only for yourself.

The standards speak for everybody.

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 14:32:26 +1100, DRS
wrote in
:

"Frank" wrote in message

DRS wrote:
"Arthur Entlich" wrote in message
news:9BYEh.1138252$1T2.1033511@pd7urf2no

[...]

Oh, but I love self-righteous indignation. Are you so sure you speak
for "everybody else"?

Yes.

Um mm...sorry pal but you don't speak for me!
You speak only for yourself.

The standards speak for everybody.

You neither set nor get to enforce the standards. Get used to it.

--
Nicolaas

DRS wrote:
"Frank" wrote in message


DRS wrote:

"Arthur Entlich" wrote in message
news:9BYEh.1138252$1T2.1033511@pd7urf2no


[...]


Oh, but I love self-righteous indignation. Are you so sure you speak
for "everybody else"?

Yes.


Um mm...sorry pal but you don't speak for me!
You speak only for yourself.


The standards speak for everybody.


That statement is not even remotely grammatically nor substantively correct.
Frank

"Nicolaas Hawkins" wrote in message

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 14:32:26 +1100, DRS
wrote in
:
"Frank" wrote in message

DRS wrote:

[...]

The standards speak for everybody.

You neither set nor get to enforce the standards. Get used to it.

I am as entitled as anybody else to complain when standards are violated.
They exist for good reason. Everybody benefits when they are adhered to,
including me.

"Arthur Entlich" wrote in message

There is no doubt that there are several, like yourself, who have a
"problem" with top posting, but that hardly makes it selfish,
inconsiderate, or "worth fighting over". The vast majority of people,
whether they have a preference or not, seem to have the basic decency
and logic to live with either form of message construction without
using bullying techniques to try to alter behaviour by suggesting not
only that a person who such a method is "selfish and inconsiderate"
but even further, that indeed a whole corporation should be boycotted
on such a basis.

DRS wrote:

I am not measekite. Perhaps if you retained the logical flow
inherent in conformance with Usenet standards and guidelines you'd
find it
easier to track who has said what.


Since you are having difficulty with both your reading, and your memory,
I have resorted to your methods of posting for this once to help you
through this...

Above is my quote, followed by your reply. My quote didn't state that
you suggested the boycott of the whole company, but that people who,
like yourself, have problems with top posting made such a suggestion and
it wasn't Measkite, in this case, it was someone named "Bill". (See below)

Bill wrote:

[...]

Won't matter, your's will no longer be seen here.
If Kodak's employees have so little appreciation for Usenet norms and
netiquette, then Kodak doesn't get consideration when purchasing time
rolls around.

snip

Bill


However, you also alluded to a possible correlation between one Kodak
employee and Kodak, the corporation:


"Ron Baird" wrote in message

[...]

Also, I always top post as it seems to me that most people want to
see that in a thread, in the future, I will bottom post your messages.


DRS wrote:

I hope Kodak doesn't share your contempt for both standards and logic.


So, perhaps my memory is a bit better than you believe.

Maybe if you top posted, you'd have a better comprehension and
recollection? ;-)

Art