Please answer me -- overclock but undervolt -- safe? How m..

"~misfit~" <misfit61nz.RemoveThis@yahooligans.co.nz> wrote in message
news:fep4a6$421$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Somewhere on the interweb "Howard Goldstein" typed:
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:00:54 +1300, ~misfit~
>> <misfit61nz.RemoveThis@yahooligans.co.nz> wrote:
>> > Somewhere on the interweb "Sjouke Burry" typed:
>> > > Amir Facade wrote:
>> > > > Top posting always seemed more logical to me.
>> > > > Why should I have to scroll down through all the stuff I already
>> > > > read in the last 20 posts.
>> > > >
>> > > > Amir
>> > > Translation:Amir cares nothing about the responses
>> > > of other people and does not care about mixing up
>> > > said responses in a random order.
>> > > Does that describe a sociopath???
>> > > Or a google groups nitwit?????
>> >
>> > I prefer the term "Googletard".
>>
>> I've become an advocate of top "posting" in _emails_ with someone I
>> have to reply. My wife read through some of the email exchanges that
>> invariably descended into nastiness. She suggested that even though
>> I'm reponding appropriately the recipient is taking it as combative to
>> have the contradictions right there, inline, beneath the quoted bits
>> from the email eliciting the reply. The combativeness is pretty much
>> gone from those email exchanges now.
>>
>> email, not on a netnews froup...
>
> Yes. For sure the placement of text can effect how it's message is
> percieved. In the same way as when you say something in a conversation, if
> you interupt, or speak in an uninteruptable way. It's all part of the
> little intricacies of interpreting "between the lines". The more text
> replaces face-to-face talk the more important this becomes.
>
> Hmm, I see an opportunity to make a few million dollars here. Collaborate
> with a (mercenary) psychologist and write a book on how to be successful
> by "correctly" composing email responses. Then market it to business
> folks.
>
> I find that, in newsgroups, people tend to be quicker to take offence
> (than in email). Bottom posting is, in a way, submissive and less likely
> IME to trigger a flame war. In email, (which I mainly use between friends
> and family) I find it easier to top-post (or inter-post) for a couple
> reasons; They know what they wrote so don't need it in context (except
> when I want to address a particular statement). The other main reason is
> there is less chance of causing offence with a person that you already
> know fairly well. You have history that any momentary misunderstanding of
> meaning can fall back on.
>
> Yeah, there's a possible fortune in this stuff. Or at the least a good
> psychology paper/thesis. <g>
> --
> TTFN
>
> Shaun.
>
OK, OK,

My comment on top posting wasn't meant to be the beginning of a flame war.
Here's my point:

If you are following a thread in a particular group, than you have already
seen all of the other responses. (At least in Outlook Express, which is what
I use.)
It just seems more efficient to me to be able to see the next response at
the top of the message when I click on it instead of having to scroll down
to the bottom to see the next response, click on the next message and scroll
to the bottom, click on the next message and scroll to the bottom, etc.
When I post to the top, all you have to do is click on the next message and
read the response.
I'm not alone in this feeling and some of the other posters to this group,
who I greatly respect over the years have been habitual top posters for the
same reason.

Sorry for the rant, just my $0.02.

Amir