Re: temple/pyramid plans

[Top-posting corrected]

Chris wrote:


On Dec 27, 9:01 pm, "Tom McDonald" <kilt...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
prd wrote:
In sci.archaeology message
news:1167264776.401209.304560@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx "Tom
McDonald" <kilt...@xxxxxxxxx> . . . :

[Rude, ignorant top-posting corrected]

Chris wrote:

On Dec 27, 4:29 am, Kendall K. Down <webmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In message <1167203495.055106.91...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
"Chris" <chrisg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

That was not a helpful post ("wacky"?! Is that how you talk to
people?).Anyone who 1) top posts, 2) comes to an archaeology
newsgroup to talk about
"sacred sites" 3) and seems worried about their precise dimensions,
deserves to be called wacky.

Ken Down

--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================

Thank you Ken Young. i will check it out.

Ken Down: i can only conclude you do not have any reference
information for me. therefore, please don't post.

That's twice you've posted in reply to someone here. And twice you've
told that other person not to post.

I don't know where the *** you think you are, sonny, but here on
Usenet, no one on an unmoderated group can be stopped from posting.

<snip>

What a quarrelsome bunch.

Can be. Can be exceptionally helpful. Usually depends on the posters
involved.

I asked a simple question.

Yes, you did. You got an answer, a suggestion, and an observation about
what many of us have found when folks want exact measurements of
religious spaces. All of them were useful, but you don't seem to have
appreciated the warning, instead taking it as a personal affront.

So can you tell us a little more about what you intend to use the
information for? It might be that some folks here might also be
interested, and have some thoughts you haven't considered. In fact, I
can think of an engineer here who is fascinated by sacred spaces and
the mathematics involved.

have the three
folks who have decided to gang up on me even consulted the two works I
suggested (fletcher and stierlin)? you might find they are helpful in
your research.

Maybe. It could be, though, that you should have asked whether anyone
was interested for themselves, instead of just being good enough to
answer you.

I have been civil. and my post warrants equal civility.

Not entirely. You got upset at the use of the word 'wacky', which seems
an odd thing to get upset about unless you think he was calling you
wacky. For which cure, I think, a civil question might have been better
than, "("wacky"?! Is that how you talk to
people?)."

You are also asking a favor, and telling people to shut up if they
don't meet your idea of what is proper. This is not a formula for
making friends or getting your questions answered.

otherwise,
"don't post". i have every right to say that.

Yes, you do. You have every right to make any number of silly
statements. Others have the perfect right to reply as seems fit to
them.

there is no need to be
snotty.

....he says after he tells folks to shut up.

get a grip already.

I have a pretty good grip on how to communicate on Usenet in such a way
as to learn what I want to learn. You don't seem to have that sort of
grip. I am trying to help you make your time on Usenet more productive.
I don't know whether you did this or not when you started on Usenet,
but most experts suggest a period of a week or more just lurking
(reading without posting) to get an idea how the group works, and what
approaches are most likely to get the response you want. Did you?

I see you have an extremely short posting history on Usenet. You might
even think you are posting to Google Groups, when in fact you are only
posting through GG to a far older, more established forum. This might
explain your approach and your top-posting.

While each newsgroup has its own view on this, most (including this
one) disapprove of top-posting. Top-posting, which is similar to how
most of us use e-mail, makes it hard to follow the arguments. Most
folks either post following the post to which they are replying or, as
I've done here, interleave their replies so that the response comes
directly after what is being responded to.

You can, of course, ignore this advice. It will not improve the
response you get from others on the newsgroup.

.

Loading