Compulsory water metering

The message from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

Really? I'd complain. Our gas meter got changed last year - it was about a decade old. Not sure how old the leccy meter is though - we've only been here five years. Bears a sticker "Tested 1989" at which point it was probably about eighteen years old. I guess it'll get tested again some time, or replaced with a solid-state one.

Our house was built in 1977. It had an electricity meter dated 1976, until several years ago when it was replaced 'because it was more than 10 years old. The replacement is dated 1954, and is only rated at 40 amps. At the same time they uprated the service fuse from 60A to 100A.

The block of flats where my mother lives had meters installed by Thames Water several years ago, but they never read the meters and continue to send out bills based on the ratable value.

Last year, they wrote to my mother asking her if she would like to have a water meter. She phoned them to say that she already had a water meter, thank you, and that she would be happy to be billed accordingly. The call centre person she spoke to refused to believe my mother and declined her invitation to come and have a look at the meter.

Regards,

Yes, that's what they (the water company) told us too. Anyone like to quote something other than a water company flyer that backs this up in law?

I didn't believe them any more than I believed the BG "engineer" (i.e. salesman) when he told us our boiler was unsafe and would have to be replaced (this was seven years ago and the boiler is still going strong and perfectly safe).

assume you've never heard of soonest-first method of filing (posting) - it's been around long before computers have - speak to an administrator (someone who archives for a living (professionally))

i suspect your newest gas bill can found alllllllllllllllllll the way behind the old archived ones - good thinking - not!

Balls. Usenet convention is bottom posting and always has been, as that is the way we write, top down. There are countless web page on Useenet etiquette. If you top post people will not respond to you on Usenet and many will just killfile you. Look at this group, all bottom post, just go with the flow. BTW, I have been on Usenet for eons, initially using green screens.

This top posting crap came in because of useless MS Outlook which puts the cursor at the top.

I remember you appearing as Adam. What did you call yourself before then?

The message from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

If you have a stupid reader that puts the cursor at the bottom then the first thing you have to do is move it to the top to select what you are going to snip.

It is perfectly logical to start at the top and work down as you pointed out.

M$ can't be held responsible if stupid people can use their products and it is they who don't follow the rules.

Not that I agree with the rules regarding top posting or that we shouldn't use html for posts either. Its only the users who insist on being traditional (old fashioned) that think we should restrict the world to using plain *ASCII* text rather than rich html.

noone can help usenet defying common-sense - rules will always have problems when they do that

say - you - with the benefit of limited comprehension - that maybe 'a rule', but it is certainly not the reason

rules are for those who lack the intelligence and common-sense to work without them - i can prove this without contradiction

more fool them - then they wont be able to benefit from my wisdom

secondly - no one ever kill-files - they just say so - curiosity is toooooooooooooo powerful

you can use 'green screens' now - so what are you saying exactly?

yet another case of you putting 2 & 2 together and making 5 - email clients (not just outlook) put the cursor at the top for a very good reason - the fact that it hasn't dawned on you cant be helped - i suggest you stick to rules

Fact - You file your new gas bill behind alllllllllllllllllll your old (archived) gas bills - i know this to be so, in fact i am so confident that i will shoot myself in the head if it isn't so - based on 'your' confirmation

before computers were even invented, professional filing was (still-is) current-most-first - current information (the latest news) is filed in front of the old news - 'archives' are kept immediately behind from the most current to the least current

i'd like to say for obvious reasons but i fear it eludes you - however, rather than explain the reasons i have decided to let you 'think' about the benefits before i tell you

this method of handling news could not be transfered to paper until the advent of computers - but now it can - and has been - by all email clients - i dread to imagine what your email responses look like - i fear you will be fighting a losing battle with the rest of your colleagues whilst you pontificate your misguided conclusions

'the' reason for posting in-line is where you need to address specific points (as opposed to the post as a whole) - so it is also common-sense that the reply by within the vicinity of the point it is addressing

Exactly, facing towards me, so that if I lift the pile out, the oldest is on the top.

Nope.

The only user of a stupid paper filing system?

Regards Capitol

Bob Eager wrote:

If you gave a tiny bit of thought about the storage needed for HTLM against plain text on the news servers - and want it to remain a free service - you'd have your answer.

Also, it's designed to be a service for all the world, and not everyone has 'free' broadband connection.

The news.newusers.questions FAQ

Firstly, MS Outlook is an email program and cannot be used for Usenet. I assume you are talking about Outlook Express.

Secondly, Agent (which I use) places the cursor at the top as well.

Thirdly, the correct place for the cursor is at the top, not the bottom - this allows judicious snipping of irrelevant stuff and the interjection of comments. I would expect all good newsreaders (and some rubbish ones) to place the cursor at the top.

Fourthly, top posters are mostly stupid, ignorant, young or a combination of all three. Their posts are also so rarely worth reading that it's not worth worth bothering about any of them.

Html *is* text and doesn't take up a vast amount of space. More is wasted by peoples stupid and pointless sigs.

"dennis@home" wrote

Irritating and unnecessary though, innit?

Two wrongs?.....

It takes up a great deal. Just because the markup is textual, doesn't make it right.

Why is it irritating? If you have a modern reader it just looks like a news posting the same as any other.

The only real difference is that it is easier to get the quoting correct.