In article <slrnd9rv1q.e6s.n.g.boa...@compsoc.dur.ac.uk>, Peter
Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote: > In reponse to recent incidents and discussion on the comp.sys.acorn > hierachy and other RISC OS mailing lists, I've put together a > series of guidelines for correct posting to RISC OS forums. > It can be found at http://www.riscos.info/posting/ > -- Peter Naulls - pe...@chocky.org | http://www.chocky.org/ > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > Please Reply Properly | > http://www.riscos.info/posting/
In article <4d746301e2decord...@ukgateway.net>, someone <decord...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
> In article <slrnd9rv1q.e6s.n.g.boa...@compsoc.dur.ac.uk>, Peter > Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote: > > In reponse to recent incidents and discussion on the comp.sys.acorn > > hierachy and other RISC OS mailing lists, I've put together a > > series of guidelines for correct posting to RISC OS forums. > > It can be found at http://www.riscos.info/posting/
<snip> Peter's sig sep isn't correctly handled, so it seems.
> Conceited little sh*t
That's a bit strong! Having read through it, most of it is just a rehashing of all the various versions of netiquette. The version I started with was the one that appeared on zfc from Richard Travers, which can be seen at http://crashnet.org.uk/zfc/sixt.html. There are a few extra bits in this new guide that appear to be tailored to the authors' own tastes (the car analogy bit, for example), but it's nothing special otherwise. Maybe a little high-handed, if you will.
I just believe that what goes around, comes around, and there are a lot worse places on Usenet than the csa groups.
While I am thinking about it, I notice this new page talks of Google as if it were the only way to search online. Being one of many in these groups that have been around on the net since before Google became so big, I should point out that other search engines are available, from old favourites such as AltaVista (http://uk.altavista.com/) to newbies such as Beegoo (http://www.beegoo.com/), each of which may contain ready links to whatever you need. I see no reason to provide Google with yet more free endorsement.
In message <4d746301e2decord...@ukgateway.net> someone <decord...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
> In article <slrnd9rv1q.e6s.n.g.boa...@compsoc.dur.ac.uk>, Peter > Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote: > > In reponse to recent incidents and discussion on the comp.sys.acorn > > hierachy and other RISC OS mailing lists, I've put together a > > series of guidelines for correct posting to RISC OS forums.
On 1 Jun, someone wrote in message <4d746301e2decord...@ukgateway.net>:
> In article <slrnd9rv1q.e6s.n.g.boa...@compsoc.dur.ac.uk>, Peter > Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> > In reponse to recent incidents and discussion on the comp.sys.acorn > > hierachy and other RISC OS mailing lists, I've put together a series > > of guidelines for correct posting to RISC OS forums.
In message <4d74647e12miy...@no.spam.here> Chika <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> While I am thinking about it, I notice this new page talks of Google as if > it were the only way to search online. Being one of many in these groups > that have been around on the net since before Google became so big, I > should point out that other search engines are available, from old > favourites such as AltaVista (http://uk.altavista.com/) to newbies such as > Beegoo (http://www.beegoo.com/), each of which may contain ready links to > whatever you need. I see no reason to provide Google with yet more free > endorsement.
I'd never heard of beegoo before, so moseyed over. I've got a particular keyword, which is 6th "of around 61,600" on Google. It's not top 50 in beegoo. Any idea what beegoo's bot is called? I've never noticed it in my stats.
Slainte
Liz
-- Virtual Liz now at http://www.v-liz.com Kenya; Tanzania; Namibia; India; Seychelles; Galapagos "I speak of Africa and golden joys"
In message <4d74647e12miy...@no.spam.here> Chika <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> While I am thinking about it, I notice this new page talks of Google as if > it were the only way to search online. Being one of many in these groups > that have been around on the net since before Google became so big, I > should point out that other search engines are available, from old > favourites such as AltaVista (http://uk.altavista.com/) to newbies such as > Beegoo (http://www.beegoo.com/),
Problem is, after AltaVista's 1999 facelift, they really did suck, and Google was increasingly useful. I appreciate that much has changed since then, and they've undergone at least one more since then, and search technology continues to improve. But the irony now is that the most recent AV incarnation looks very much like Google. And if you take a look at Yahoo! search, it too bears an uncanny resemblance. The conspiracy deepens if you look at the new Google personalised pages - looks rather like Yahoo!'s front page, doesn't it?
> each of which may contain ready links to whatever you need. I see no > reason to provide Google with yet more free endorsement.
Never mind that Google has provided me with literally thousands (perhaps 10s of thousands) of searches for free, or that Google searches often turn up RISC OS pages for computing topics that you might at first think ought to rank elsewhere higher (try "unix ports" in a search engine).
<inva...@v-liz.co.uk> wrote: > In message <4d74647e12miy...@no.spam.here> Chika > <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote: > > While I am thinking about it, I notice this new page talks of Google > > as if it were the only way to search online. Being one of many in > > these groups that have been around on the net since before Google > > became so big, I should point out that other search engines are > > available, from old favourites such as AltaVista > > (http://uk.altavista.com/) to newbies such as Beegoo > > (http://www.beegoo.com/), each of which may contain ready links to > > whatever you need. I see no reason to provide Google with yet more > > free endorsement.
> I'd never heard of beegoo before, so moseyed over. I've got a particular > keyword, which is 6th "of around 61,600" on Google. It's not top 50 in > beegoo. Any idea what beegoo's bot is called? I've never noticed it in > my stats.
Offhand, I couldn't tell you. I stumbled across them recently after mistyping "google" and have only used them a couple of times.
> In message <4d74647e12miy...@no.spam.here> Chika > <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote: > > While I am thinking about it, I notice this new page talks of Google > > as if it were the only way to search online. Being one of many in > > these groups that have been around on the net since before Google > > became so big, I should point out that other search engines are > > available, from old favourites such as AltaVista > > (http://uk.altavista.com/) to newbies such as Beegoo > > (http://www.beegoo.com/), > Problem is, after AltaVista's 1999 facelift, they really did suck, and > Google was increasingly useful. I appreciate that much has changed since > then, and they've undergone at least one more since then, and search > technology continues to improve. But the irony now is that the most > recent AV incarnation looks very much like Google. And if you take a > look at Yahoo! search, it too bears an uncanny resemblance. The > conspiracy deepens if you look at the new Google personalised pages - > looks rather like Yahoo!'s front page, doesn't it?
Quite so, but considering that Google's original layout looked very similar to the old AV, the question is whether there is much you can do to a search engine site to make it look sufficiently different. One thing I tend to find with using different engines is that each prioritises its results in a different way, hence finding some things on one engine will be somewhat easier than on another.
> > each of which may contain ready links to whatever you need. I see no > > reason to provide Google with yet more free endorsement. > Never mind that Google has provided me with literally thousands (perhaps > 10s of thousands) of searches for free, or that Google searches often > turn up RISC OS pages for computing topics that you might at first think > ought to rank elsewhere higher (try "unix ports" in a search engine).
I don't mind, but then this page isn't about you, it is about the way in which we, the people that participate in this group, should be posting. It's bad enough where some sites say that we must use a particular browser, without them then telling us to arbitrarily use a specific web resource without fair mention of other available resources.
In message <4d746cf67fmiy...@no.spam.here> Chika <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> In article <9f896b744d.pe...@chocky.org>, Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> > wrote: > > Never mind that Google has provided me with literally thousands (perhaps > > 10s of thousands) of searches for free, or that Google searches often > > turn up RISC OS pages for computing topics that you might at first think > > ought to rank elsewhere higher (try "unix ports" in a search engine).
> I don't mind, but then this page isn't about you, it is about the way in > which we, the people that participate in this group, should be posting. > It's bad enough where some sites say that we must use a particular > browser, without them then telling us to arbitrarily use a specific web > resource without fair mention of other available resources.
No, I don't agree - this is a contrived comparison from your dislike of Google. The problem with browsers is a question of accessibility, security and perhaps of open source and closed standards - none of which really applies here. Google is readily avilable to anyone with even some archaic browsers - by all means use other resources if you want to, but making a fuss and suggesting we ought to be for no other reason than there happens to be choice is just silly.
> In message <4d746cf67fmiy...@no.spam.here> Chika > <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote: > > In article <9f896b744d.pe...@chocky.org>, Peter Naulls > > <pe...@chocky.org> wrote: > > > Never mind that Google has provided me with literally thousands > > > (perhaps 10s of thousands) of searches for free, or that Google > > > searches often turn up RISC OS pages for computing topics that you > > > might at first think ought to rank elsewhere higher (try "unix > > > ports" in a search engine).
> > I don't mind, but then this page isn't about you, it is about the way > > in which we, the people that participate in this group, should be > > posting. It's bad enough where some sites say that we must use a > > particular browser, without them then telling us to arbitrarily use a > > specific web resource without fair mention of other available > > resources. > No, I don't agree - this is a contrived comparison from your dislike of > Google.
Now, how did I guess that this would rear its ugly head? No, this has nothing to do with my "dislike of Google". Actually, I freely admit that I use Google for searches and have done for years, just as I have used other engines. My dislike is of Googlegroups, which is slightly different, but as that has nothing to do with the topic of search engines, I'll leave that aside for now.
> The problem with browsers is a question of accessibility, security and > perhaps of open source and closed standards - none of which really > applies here.
It does seem that, as in the other post, you have gone to extraordinary lengths to misinterpret my words. Quite amazing, really.
> Google is readily avilable to anyone with even some archaic browsers - > by all means use other resources if you want to, but making a fuss and > suggesting we ought to be for no other reason than there happens to be > choice is just silly.
Well, don't say that you haven't been warned. Dismiss it if you like, but companies have gone further than this where they believe that they aren't being given a fair crack. So which is sillier; my calling you out for this, or your attitude towards the availability of other resources?
In message <4d74725271miy...@no.spam.here> Chika <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> In article <e4746e744d.pe...@chocky.org>, Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> > wrote: > > No, I don't agree - this is a contrived comparison from your dislike of > > Google.
> Now, how did I guess that this would rear its ugly head?
Because it's far from clear what point you're making. And because you've made comments elsewhere which certainly suggest this.
> > The problem with browsers is a question of accessibility, security and > > perhaps of open source and closed standards - none of which really > > applies here.
> It does seem that, as in the other post, you have gone to extraordinary > lengths to misinterpret my words. Quite amazing, really.
On the contrary, I replied to _precisely_ what you said. The onus is on you to be much clearer if you thought you meant something else.
> Well, don't say that you haven't been warned. Dismiss it if you like, but > companies have gone further than this where they believe that they aren't > being given a fair crack. So which is sillier; my calling you out for > this, or your attitude towards the availability of other resources?
I'm afraid this doesn't make any sense at all. I wish you'd stop wasting our time with these arguments.
-- "Space", it says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big space really is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemists, but that's just *peanuts* compared to space, listen" - Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy
> In reponse to recent incidents and discussion on the comp.sys.acorn > hierachy and other RISC OS mailing lists, I've put together a series of > guidelines for correct posting to RISC OS forums.
In article <4d746969aeusenet-nos...@segfault.co.uk>, pv
<usenet-nos...@segfault.co.uk> wrote: > Some people are just so thick and ignorant that when they run out > of argument and have to resort to obscene language they can't even > spell a simple four letter word! > I'd let them crawl back under the stone they crawled out of and get > back on with your programming, ignoring them. > Some of us appreciate what you're doing!
In article <4d746969aeusenet-nos...@segfault.co.uk>, pv <usenet-nos...@segfault.co.uk> wrote:
> Some of us appreciate what you're doing!
Paul, I looked for the smiley in your post but there wan't one. So I read it again and feel somewhat disappointed that you think I can't spell that four letter word!
Do you *really* appreciate being told how to spell Peter Naulls' own name on what presumably was meant to be a general set of public guidelines on usenet? This makes it very personal to him and thus implies a whole set of its own implications of ownership.
Do you really need to be told to use both contractional and possessive apostrophes correctly? And if you have a literacy problem, does it help to be reminded of it out of context?
I have no problem with the rest of the guidelines where they are related to use of usenet and to the c.s.a* groups in particular. They are clear and easy to understand. It was only when I got to the final paragraphs that I became offended.
But I really resent being told by a young man, with no social skills whatsoever (only very high technical ones, which I can never hope to even appreciate) how to suck eggs.
In message <4d74a9049edecord...@ukgateway.net> Chris de Cordova <decord...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
> In article <4d746969aeusenet-nos...@segfault.co.uk>, pv > Do you *really* appreciate being told how to spell Peter Naulls' own > name on what presumably was meant to be a general set of public > guidelines on usenet? This makes it very personal to him and thus > implies a whole set of its own implications of ownership.
Told? No, it's a set of guidelines. Neverthless, it's an example of something which people get wrong often. It would be innappropriate to use someone else's name, even though there are ones I could use.
> Do you really need to be told to use both contractional and > possessive apostrophes correctly?
Given how lazy many people seem to be, who really do know, yes. If you know how to use them just fine, then they remain guidelines.
> And if you have a literacy problem, > does it help to be reminded of it out of context?
There's no pretence of any such thing, and claiming otherwise is just picking a fight.
> But I really resent being told by a young man, with no social skills > whatsoever (only very high technical ones, which I can never hope to > even appreciate) how to suck eggs.
This is pretty rich, from the person who yesterday used offensive language with no justification at all. As for sucking eggs, there are numerous guidelines on the internet for all kinds of things I'm sure you know how to do perfectly well already. It's a bit foolish to claim my particular guidelines are any different.
In article <86e769744d.st...@helvellyn.stevefryatt.org.uk>, Steve Fryatt
<n...@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote: > On 1 Jun, someone wrote in message <4d746301e2decord...@ukgateway.net>: > > In article <slrnd9rv1q.e6s.n.g.boa...@compsoc.dur.ac.uk>, Peter > > Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote: > > > [my] guidelines for [my opinion of what constitutes] correct > > > posting to RISC OS forums. can be found at > > > http://www.riscos.info/posting/
> > Conceited little sh*t > Did you mean to contribute something /useful/ there?
It looks like one opinion in response to another set of opinions whose link PN posted to c.s.a.announce. Here begins (continues) the unnecessary flame wars based on a lack of understanding of human nature . . . on many sides.
I'm not certain the original posting contributed anything new, though its usefulness may shine in time to come. A shame it contained (IMVHO) items of personal rather than general taste. (e.g. who--apart from PN--really cares if car analogies are used? They help some people in their understanding and their ability to explain. Just don't mention the War ...)
On a more relevant note a word about web searches: why isn't every RISC OS user recommending Patrick Mortara's RiscSearch which uses 19 search engines? http://www.riscsearch.de/
-- To leave BT's billing and reduce your phone bill by up to a half, to obtain your own spam-proof address, or to contact me, visit www.invalid.org.uk or email postmaster at invalid dot org dot uk (To avoid spam, email to 1...@invalid.org.uk is deleted unread).
... "'Tis good to be sad and say nothing" A Y L I, Act iv, Sc.1
Chris wrote: > In article <slrnd9rv1q.e6s.n.g.boa...@compsoc.dur.ac.uk>, Peter > Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote: > > In reponse to recent incidents and discussion on the comp.sys.acorn > > hierachy and other RISC OS mailing lists, I've put together a > > series of guidelines for correct posting to RISC OS forums.
In article <1117717750.429162.215...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, <maru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote: > > In article <slrnd9rv1q.e6s.n.g.boa...@compsoc.dur.ac.uk>, Peter > > Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote: > > > In reponse to recent incidents and discussion on the > > > comp.sys.acorn hierachy and other RISC OS mailing lists, I've > > > put together a series of guidelines for correct posting to RISC > > > OS forums.
On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 06:25 +0000, Peter Naulls wrote: > In message <4d74725271miy...@no.spam.here> > Chika <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote: > > Well, don't say that you haven't been warned. Dismiss it if you like, but > > companies have gone further than this where they believe that they aren't > > being given a fair crack. So which is sillier; my calling you out for > > this, or your attitude towards the availability of other resources?
> I'm afraid this doesn't make any sense at all. I wish you'd stop > wasting our time with these arguments.
Given that this is a public forum where anyone can follow the proceedings, I can understand the above argument from Peter. What I can't understand is why he considers it a waste of someone elses time. I can understand it being a waste of his, but how can he say it is a waste of mine or anyone elses?
TTFN
Paul -- "Space", it says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big space really is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemists, but that's just *peanuts* compared to space, listen" - Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy
In message <1117729191.27658.9.camel@localhost> "Paul F. Johnson" <p...@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote:
> Given that this is a public forum where anyone can follow the > proceedings, I can understand the above argument from Peter. What I > can't understand is why he considers it a waste of someone elses time. I > can understand it being a waste of his, but how can he say it is a waste > of mine or anyone elses?
Given how much time _you've_ wasted in the past of people's time, I don't really think you should be trying to answer this.
On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 16:22 +0000, Peter Naulls wrote: > In message <1117729191.27658.9.camel@localhost> > "Paul F. Johnson" <p...@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote:
> > Given that this is a public forum where anyone can follow the > > proceedings, I can understand the above argument from Peter. What I > > can't understand is why he considers it a waste of someone elses time. I > > can understand it being a waste of his, but how can he say it is a waste > > of mine or anyone elses?
> Given how much time _you've_ wasted in the past of people's time, I > don't really think you should be trying to answer this.
I'm not trying to answer anything here. I've raised a point which you've decided to round on for no real reason instead of actually answering the point raised.
For the hard of hearing, here it is again...
...how can he say it is a waste of mine or anyone elses?
Instead of just trying to jump up and down and be the "big man" (so to speak), try a bit of civility.
TTFN
Paul -- "Space", it says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big space really is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemists, but that's just *peanuts* compared to space, listen" - Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy
In message <1117731882.27658.15.camel@localhost> "Paul F. Johnson" <p...@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 16:22 +0000, Peter Naulls wrote: > I'm not trying to answer anything here. I've raised a point which you've > decided to round on for no real reason instead of actually answering the > point raised.
I would say it was ironic, but this is a concept you seem to have had troubles with in the past.
> For the hard of hearing, here it is again...
> ...how can he say it is a waste of mine or anyone elses?
I can say it because he's trying to make a pointless argument about something he didn't define at all well. A bit like your reply here, oddly enough. I don't really believe you've posted just now to be constructive or "return to the fold", you just thought you'd try and have a go at me for the sake of it.
On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 18:13 +0000, Peter Naulls wrote: > In message <1117731882.27658.15.camel@localhost> > "Paul F. Johnson" <p...@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote:
> > I'm not trying to answer anything here. I've raised a point which you've > > decided to round on for no real reason instead of actually answering the > > point raised.
> I would say it was ironic, but this is a concept you seem to have had > troubles with in the past.
Ah insults. Last standpoint of the desperate.
> > For the hard of hearing, here it is again...
> > ...how can he say it is a waste of mine or anyone elses?
> I can say it because he's trying to make a pointless argument about > something he didn't define at all well. A bit like your reply here, > oddly enough.
No, I did define it very well. As I said, how can you say that something is a waste of time for someone else when you don't know what constitutes a waste of time for anyone other than yourself.
> I don't really believe you've posted just now to be > constructive or "return to the fold", you just thought you'd try and > have a go at me for the sake of it.
Try reading what I said then rather than just jumping. I actually agreed with something you said, but then question the rest of it. Nothing bad was meant, merely asking on what grounds you can judge what anyone other than yourself constitutes a waste of time. You used the word "our" (and in this context, our means csam and therefore means the readership of the thread) which can only mean everyone here or who stumbles on this.
Now, is it possible that with certain people you are not capable of holding a rational conversation or to be civil with them or are not able to let bygones be bygones? All evidence points to no. Oh well, such is the rich tapestry of life.
People disagree, some get over it, others don't and hold a grudge for too long (and yes, I know I'm as guilty of that as the next man...) and others just are incapable of answering a direct question without resorting to petty insults. Time for another coffee.
TTFN
Paul -- "Space", it says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big space really is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemists, but that's just *peanuts* compared to space, listen" - Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy
In message <1117740711.31221.10.camel@localhost> "Paul F. Johnson" <p...@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 18:13 +0000, Peter Naulls wrote: > > In message <1117731882.27658.15.camel@localhost> > > "Paul F. Johnson" <p...@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote:
> > I would say it was ironic, but this is a concept you seem to have had > > troubles with in the past.
> Ah insults. Last standpoint of the desperate.
No, an observation. Irony continues to be a concept that passes you by.
[snip waffle]
So, in conclusion, you really didn't have anything of value to add to this thread.
-- Peter Naulls - pe...@chocky.org | http://www.chocky.org/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Drobe - http://www.drobe.co.uk/ | The Premier RISC OS News Site
On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 19:38 +0000, Peter Naulls wrote: > In message <1117740711.31221.10.camel@localhost> > "Paul F. Johnson" <p...@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 18:13 +0000, Peter Naulls wrote: > > > In message <1117731882.27658.15.camel@localhost> > > > "Paul F. Johnson" <p...@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote:
> > > I would say it was ironic, but this is a concept you seem to have had > > > troubles with in the past.
> > Ah insults. Last standpoint of the desperate.
> No, an observation. Irony continues to be a concept that passes you > by.
Depends on how you look at it. I have no problem with irony.
> [snip waffle]
> So, in conclusion, you really didn't have anything of value to add to > this thread.
Actually, it seems that you have nothing really to add to it. You've not addressed any of the valid points raised. Instead, you dismiss the lot with a wave of the hand.
So much for the stuff you've put up. You seem quite happy to ignore it.
TTFN
Paul
-- "Space", it says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big space really is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemists, but that's just *peanuts* compared to space, listen" - Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy
