Replying
Susan Laxton
it
> is to read it that way.
Now, hold on, Mr. Man. I think it's easier to read the reply when it's
ABOVE the quote, as it can often keep you from scrolling down. But outta
courtesy to you, I put this comment below.
> Since there seems to be a recent influx of newbies who haven't quite
grasped
> preferred replying methods:
I'm not new to newsgroups... I'm just new to this one. Thanks for letting
us know that your way is the one true right way.
"David Murray (SG Fan)" <dbmu...@deletethis.rfci.net> wrote in message
news:wBLL4.8451$MB.1...@news6.giganews.com...
> Since there seems to be a recent influx of newbies who haven't quite
grasped
> preferred replying methods:
>
> Replies make more sense if you quote only the relevant portion of the
> message to which you are responding. Furthermore, it's generally
> non-sensical if you butt into a thread anywhere with your comments, rather
> than replying directly to a relevant quote.
>
> An example:
>
> If Jerry B. Ray writes: "I like red cars. The Braves are a great baseball
> team. Cindy Morgan is a goddess." and you wanted to dispute him on the
> Morgan comment, your reply should look something like:
>
> Jerry B. Ray wrote in message XYZ:
> >Cindy Morgan is a goddess.
>
> Jerry, you've lost your freaking mind.
>
> Sincerely, David Bruce Murray
>
> Note how the reply comes under the quote, not above, and how much easier
it
> is to read it that way.
>
> Now suppose two or three others get into the exchange, until we have a
> thread of comments that looks like:
>
>
> Peter Thomas Chattaway wrote in message HIJ
> >Ed Rock wrote in message EFG
> >>David Bruce Murray wrote in message ABC
> >>>Jerry B. Ray wrote in message XYZ:
> >>>>Cindy Morgan is a goddess.
>
> >>>Jerry, you've lost your freaking mind.
>
> >>Jerry's mind isn't lost. It's a Christian mind.
>
> >There's an article in Christianity Today about
> >how Jerry's mind was saved by Cindy Morgan.
> >Here's the link . . .
>
>
> It makes absolutely no sense to quote all the stuff above so you can
insert
> your observation about how well the Braves are doing. It's much better to
> follow the thread back to the beginning, quote "The Braves are a great
> baseball team," snip out the irrelevant stuff, and proceed from there.
>
> Usenet Clarity: It's Everybody's Job.
>
> David Bruce Murray / dbmu...@deletethis.rfci.net
> http://rfci.net/dbmurray
> http://www.musicscribe.com
> Making hay while the sun shines.
>
Brian Trosko
: Now, hold on, Mr. Man. I think it's easier to read the reply when it's
: ABOVE the quote, as it can often keep you from scrolling down.
Irrelevant. The fact that it is easier for you does not mean it is easier
for everyone. Usenet operates in a disjointed fashion, and posts that
appear in a given order on your server haven't necessarily propagated to
everyone else's server in that same way, yet. It's common for people to
receive a reply to a post before receiving the original post. This is one
reason why replies are supposed to go *after* quoted material: so that
even if that one article is the one that is received, context and relevant
preceding material is preserved.
: I'm not new to newsgroups... I'm just new to this one. Thanks for letting
: us know that your way is the one true right way.
The one true right way also involved cutting extraneous text from your
reply before posting. Start doing that, and you'll find yourself getting
along fine.
David Murray (SG Fan)
>> Note how the reply comes under the quote, not above, and how much easier
>it
>> is to read it that way.
>
>courtesy to you, I put this comment below.
So . . . never mind about context?
>> Since there seems to be a recent influx of newbies who haven't quite
>grasped
>> preferred replying methods:
>
>I'm not new to newsgroups... I'm just new to this one. Thanks for letting
>us know that your way is the one true right way.
That's right.
BTW, you still quoted my entire message.
John Hosie
Oh thank you for telling us the one TRUE way to reply. Your wisdom is obviously
something greater than anything us peons might have. We are not worthy to read
your
words. We marvel at your words. Thank you for taking the time for telling us lowly
creatures how we should creatively reply to others.
"Jerry B. Ray, Jr." wrote:
> <snip>
> It's not just his way, but it _is_, in fact, the one true right way if
> you actually care about clarity and readability in your responses.
> And if you don't care about clarity and readability in your responses,
> then why should _I_ care about reading them?
<snip>
John Hosie
McGovern
<so...@texas.net> wrote:
>Jerry, shhh. You're wasting bandwidth. (This is the oldest, and most
>tired, argument ever. It's been around longer than Russ Taft.)
>
sp: Taff
David Murray (SG Fan)
>And if you don't care about clarity and readability in your responses,
>then why should _I_ care about reading them?
Which is exactly the point I was implying, though I made every effort to be
courteous about it.
I guess we can thank God for killfiles. Mine keeps growing.
Question: Is there any way to reverse killfile on Usenet?
Jerry B. Ray, Jr.
John Hosie <John_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Jerry,
>Oh thank you for telling us the one TRUE way to reply. Your wisdom is obviously
>something greater than anything us peons might have. We are not worthy to read
>your
>words. We marvel at your words. Thank you for taking the time for
>telling us lowly
>
>creatures how we should creatively reply to others.
See, now that's the sort of respectful attitude I expect from all you
people. Thank you, John, for your good attitude and your willingness
to accept correction. You're a fine man. Now fix your line wrap.
JRjr
--
%%%%% vap...@prism.gatech.edu %%%%%%%% Jerry B. Ray, Jr. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"I am so amazingly cool you could keep a side of meat in me for a month.
I am so hip I have difficulty seeing over my pelvis."
-- Zaphod Beeblebrox
Jeff Holland
Jerry B. Ray, Jr. wrote:
> In article <38FFC2D9...@maranatha.net>,
> John Hosie <John_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Jerry,
> >Oh thank you for telling us the one TRUE way to reply. Your wisdom is obviously
> >something greater than anything us peons might have. We are not worthy to read
> >your
> >words. We marvel at your words. Thank you for taking the time for
> >telling us lowly
> >
> >creatures how we should creatively reply to others.
>
> See, now that's the sort of respectful attitude I expect from all you
> people.
Uh, oh. Rules is rules.
*thwap*
> Thank you, John, for your good attitude and your willingness
> to accept correction. You're a fine man. Now fix your line wrap.
Where's Peter King when you need him?
NP: Mortal, _Fathom_
--
Jeff Holland is
jholland at gttx dot org
members.tripod.com/JeffreyHolland
cs...@mail.tds.net
> Now, hold on, Mr. Man. I think it's easier to read the reply when it's
> ABOVE the quote, as it can often keep you from scrolling down. But outta
> courtesy to you, I put this comment below.
Who are you responding too? This is part of the problem.
> > Since there seems to be a recent influx of newbies who haven't quite
> grasped
> > preferred replying methods:
>
> I'm not new to newsgroups... I'm just new to this one. Thanks for letting
> us know that your way is the one true right way.
His way is a heck of a lot easier to read than your way. With your way
I get to figure out after the fact that you are actually responding to:
> "David Murray (SG Fan)" <dbmu...@deletethis.rfci.net> wrote in message
And then I get to reread his entire message without an ounce of it cut
in the interest of those of us with slower modems.
<snip remainder of David's message>.
Chip
cs...@mail.tds.net
>
> Jerry, shhh. You're wasting bandwidth. (This is the oldest, and most
> tired, argument ever. It's been around longer than Russ Taft.)
Susan... are you really Bob?
Chip
James Stewart
>Question: Is there any way to reverse killfile on Usenet?
slrn allows scoring of posts based on headers. Scoring a post to -9999 is
equivalent to killfiling it. Positive scores show the post higher up in the
list.
James.
--
James Stewart -- ja...@britlinks.co.uk \ "History is written to
Britlinks -- http://www.britlinks.co.uk \ say it wasn't our fault"
The Phantom Tollbooth -- http://www.tollbooth.org \ -- Sam Phillips
Thewebchyk
>I guess we can thank God for killfiles. Mine keeps growing.
I've plonked a couple of people recently. It makes this place a lot more
tolerable, especially when some folks resort to ad hominems and temper tantrums
when they are politely asked to follow the ng's established policies (not to
mention Usenet standards).
It's funny to me how some things never change. People always show up who know
better and insist on doing things the "right" way -- their way.
Oh, well. I'll second your emotion... thank God for killfiles. I don't have any
qualms about using it.
Peace,
Rose
Thewebchyk
Heh. Which Susan? ;^)
Just say "killfile," Chip. It's a beautiful thing.
Peace,
Rose
snail
>On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 00:41:13 -0400, David Murray (SG Fan) wrote:
>>Question: Is there any way to reverse killfile on Usenet?
>slrn allows scoring of posts based on headers. Scoring a post to -9999 is
>equivalent to killfiling it. Positive scores show the post higher up in the
slrn is way cool and I dig it in every way.
--
snail | sn...@careless.net.au | http://www.careless.net.au/~snail/
I'm a man of my word. In the end, that's all there is. - Avon
Susan Anderson
: Chip <cs...@mail.tds.net> wrote:
:>Susan Laxton wrote:
:>>
:>> Jerry, shhh. You're wasting bandwidth. (This is the oldest, and most
:>> tired, argument ever. It's been around longer than Russ Taft.)
:>
:>Susan... are you really Bob?
: Heh. Which Susan? ;^)
Most definitely not me. ;-)
: Just say "killfile," Chip. It's a beautiful thing.
Ah...the joys of the killfile... Gotta love it. :)
Susan
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Susan Anderson kee...@visi.com http://www.visi.com/~keepon/
http://www.visi.com/~keepon/mb.html (The Margaret Becker Page)
"I'd pay $150 just to listen to
Margaret Becker gargle." - Rick Baldwin
David Murray (SG Fan)
James Stewart wrote in message ...
>On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 00:41:13 -0400, David Murray (SG Fan) wrote:
>>Question: Is there any way to reverse killfile on Usenet?
>
>slrn allows scoring of posts based on headers. Scoring a post to -9999 is
>equivalent to killfiling it. Positive scores show the post higher up in the
I was speaking more along the lines of a feature I've used in ICQ, which is
a brand of "instant messaging" software where people can see when you are
online and send you messages when they know you'll get them right away. In
ICQ, you can "ignore" people in your list who are online, which is kind of
like killfiling them, but you can also set it so you are invisible to
certain people while being visible to the general populace. In other words,
you can make them think you are never online.
For Usenet usage, I was wondering if any newsreaders would similarly prevent
the people in my killfile from seeing the posts I write, while still making
them available to the general public.
For example, if I get into what I view to be a fruitless argument with
Cheef, I can killfile either all of his posts or just the one thread, but I
don't believe there's any way to prevent him from still reading my comments,
replying to them, and stirring up trouble basically behind my back.
(Of course, Cheef wouldn't actually do such a thing. That's why I picked him
for the example.) :o)
David Murray (SG Fan)
Jeff Holland wrote in message <39007087...@gttx.NO.org.SPAM>...
>
>Jerry B. Ray, Jr. wrote:
>> See, now that's the sort of respectful attitude I expect from all you
>> people.
>
> Uh, oh. Rules is rules.
>
> *thwap*
Now that's funny. :o)
Jerry B. Ray, Jr.
David Murray (SG Fan) <dbmu...@deletethis.rfci.net> wrote:
>For Usenet usage, I was wondering if any newsreaders would similarly prevent
>the people in my killfile from seeing the posts I write, while still making
>them available to the general public.
Nah, it's too distributed for that. With ICQ, everything goes through
a central server, I believe. Usenet doesn't have a parallel for that.
John Hosie
music. SO there's no fixing to be done.
"Jerry B. Ray, Jr." wrote:
> <snip>
>
> See, now that's the sort of respectful attitude I expect from all you
> people. Thank you, John, for your good attitude and your willingness
> to accept correction. You're a fine man. Now fix your line wrap.
>
snail
>Sorry, this is a Christian MUSIC newsgroup, and I don't consider wrap to be
>music. SO there's no fixing to be done.
Ouch. Bad pun :-)
Ed Rock
> Sorry, this is a Christian MUSIC newsgroup, and I don't consider wrap to be
> music. SO there's no fixing to be done.
Behold how pleasant it is for brethern to dwell together.
Ed Rock Crabtree http://ias.ga.unc.edu/~ecrab Church of Ed & Dave (NSAT)
"Life is a banquet, and most poor bastards are starving to death."
--Auntie Mame
Jason Bright
Ed Rock <ec...@ias.ga.unc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.04.100042...@ias.ga.unc.edu...
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2000, John Hosie wrote:
>
> > Sorry, this is a Christian MUSIC newsgroup, and I don't consider wrap to
be
> > music. SO there's no fixing to be done.
wrap??? Is that a new kind if Christmas music or something. I'm not
farmiliar with that term. First off, you have to realize something. Just
because you don't thing it is music, doesnt mean that the rest of the world
feel that way. I consider RAP to be music. It is just a different KIND of
music. Just because something is different doesn't mean that it is evil.
There are a lot of good Christian RAP MUSICIANS out there who present a
wonderful message. Get your junk strait John.
> Behold how pleasant it is for brethern to dwell together.
>
Pleasant indeed =P