Webtv; Outlet for Common Folk!
Jay langford
This is for them that like it; them that don't like it; and for the rest
that don't give a Damn, one way or the other!!
Regardless of what the "so called" upper class" says, we, of the Webtv,
are havin' a Ball with this thing and I have met people That I would
have never known; songs that I had forgotten, artists I had forgotten,
places I didn't know about, people that are never satisfied with
anything, some old GI buddies that I hadn't thought about in years, a
place on the net that is about my A1E Skyraider that I was crew chief on
in Viet Nam, found some pictures of some of the places I was stationed
over there, one of Saigon where I used to "drink and talk" to
people,(both local and U S), and many,many other
things!!....................
If this offends anybody, I really don't give a damn. Let's just enjoy
the "net" and use it the way it was intended; "INFO"
Old Chinese Proverb: Looky & See!
"The Original Jay Bird"
MissC...@webtv.net
Hey, Jay! :)
Nice post. :) I'm glad you're having so much fun with this thing! I
think it's really cool myself. I am just too damn cheap to go out and
buy a computer, so this kind of thing is more up my alley. (I could
afford a computer and all, but why waste the money when WebTV will do
the job?)
I don't think (or at least I sure hope) that people aren't talking about
you, me, Fearless Angel, etc. when they're complaining about WebTV
users. Some WebTVers annoy me, too, but that's because a lot of them are
teenagers. That's the downside of WebTV being so inexpensive.
I'm glad you have WebTV, too, Jay. You seem like a very nice fellow and
I'm glad you were able to come aboard on RMCW. Take care! :)
JC
Elenred
>MissC...@webtv.net wrote:
>
>I don't think (or at least I sure hope) that people aren't talking about
>you, me, Fearless Angel, etc. when they're complaining about WebTV
You're exactly right Miss Clawdy and I do apologize if my post offended any
of the folks mentioned and a few others . It was only meant as a tongue in
cheek jab at the likes of Magneto and Dragonfire. Some took it as serious and
that was not my intent at all.
Elen
F.Gentry
Bet you thought I had never heard of that outfit didn't you.
Jay langford
Floyd says; "Thats why I have to get me a
Webtv................................................"
I was in Okinawa in 1954,55,&56. (thats where I knew Billy Graves). I
was in the Air Force and worked in Transient Alert and we took care of
all the Aircraft that were just passing through. Did you ever get to
Kadena Air Base there? My biggest thrill while I was there was bringin'
in a
British "Fury" and talking to the pilot. (The Fury is a single engine
plane kindly like our P-51 Mustang. Were you in Korea during that time?
Jay
Luvless
Jay langford wrote:
>
> This is for them that like it; them that don't like it; and for the rest
> that don't give a Damn, one way or the other!!
> Regardless of what the "so called" upper class" says, we, of the Webtv,
> are havin' a Ball with this thing and I have met people That I would
> have never known; songs that I had forgotten, artists I had forgotten,
> places I didn't know about, people that are never satisfied with
> anything, some old GI buddies that I hadn't thought about in years, a
> place on the net that is about my A1E Skyraider that I was crew chief on
> in Viet Nam, found some pictures of some of the places I was stationed
> over there, one of Saigon where I used to "drink and talk" to
> people,(both local and U S), and many,many other
> things!!....................
> If this offends anybody, I really don't give a damn. Let's just enjoy
> the "net" and use it the way it was intended; "INFO"
> Old Chinese Proverb: Looky & See!
>
>
> "The Original Jay Bird"
It's easy to see you're having fun, Jay. And unlike the majority of my
posts, yours are are always interesting and educational. Keep 'em
coming.
-Luvless
Alice Lacour
I ve had my webtv since the 2nd month they were on the market, and it s
a lot faster, easier to use and a heck of a lot cheaper then a
computer.A computer bought over a year ago would already be obsolete.I
know I ve an IBM Compatible sitting over there.Our up grades are
automatic on webtv.
By the way Jay, have you found Billy Graves yet?I ve been looking but no
luck.
Lonnie Lynne LaCour
.
My "under construction" homepage <g> :
http://www.geocities.com/broadway/4707/
Jay langford
Lonnie, I do believe Billy has gone too far and fell off the edge of the
Earth! He had
a partner named Pat Garrett, but I can't find him either. Thanks for
being concerned. I like your homepage! Very interesting. Jay
Glen Quarnstrom
Gita...@webtv.net (Jay langford) wrote:
>This is for them that like it; them that don't like it; and for the rest
>that don't give a Damn, one way or the other!!
>Regardless of what the "so called" upper class" says, we, of the Webtv,
>are havin' a Ball with this thing and I have met people That I would
>have never known; songs that I had forgotten, artists I had forgotten,
>places I didn't know about, people that are never satisfied with
>anything, some old GI buddies that I hadn't thought about in years, a
>place on the net that is about my A1E Skyraider that I was crew chief on
>in Viet Nam, found some pictures of some of the places I was stationed
>over there, one of Saigon where I used to "drink and talk" to
>people,(both local and U S), and many,many other
>things!!....................
>If this offends anybody, I really don't give a damn. Let's just enjoy
>the "net" and use it the way it was intended; "INFO"
>Old Chinese Proverb: Looky & See!
With all due respect, son, most of you WebTV folks don't have the
slightest clue how the 'net was intended to be used. Most of you
probably haven't even read the newusers newsgroups about proper
posting etiquette. And until your toy offers you some decent tools,
so you can at least quote properly, folks are going to look down on
you.
--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
http://www.cyberhighway.net/~glenq/
drmjo...@webtv.net
Lonnie:
I have a computer *and* WebTv. I have to agree that WebTv is MUCH
faster in dealing
with newsgroup postings and MUCH easier to
use in reading through the newsgroup posts.
Maybe the major computer geeks aren't as smart as they assumed.
drmj
drmjo...@webtv.net
Glenq:
Geesh!!...you really are the abusive type. Why
the hell don't you lighten up? And if you can't
remember what you posted last...why should you blame your bad memory on
someone that
can't "quote"?
drmj
Jay langford
No Quote; No Quote; No Quote. (I don't
know how.)
Thoes in favor of Jay--17
Thoes against Jay(Glen "Q" for quote)--1
This is just the first 12 hours!
"Ask not what the posts can do for you;
Ask what you can do for the posts."
Jay
Fearless Angel
gl...@NOSPAMcyberhighway.net (Glen Quarnstrom) wrote:
>With all due respect to you son, most of you
>WebTV folks don't have the slightest clue how
>the 'net was intended to be used. Most of you
>probably haven't even read the newusers
>newsgroups about proper posting etiquette.
>And until your toy offers you some decent
>tools, so you can at least quote properly,
>folks are going to look down on you.
With all due respect to you, sir, there are just as many computer users
(if not more) as WebTV users who also don't follow proper netiquette
when posting to Usenet newsgroups; and, for the most part, it has
absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with being incognizant of Usenet
rules or the Infobahn itself. These indivduals who choose not to follow
proper netiquette obviously feel that by doing so it would infringe upon
their right to free speech. They are an integral part of net culture, so
get used to it! Besides, how many of us can actually say that we follow
proper netiquette at all times? I'm sure that there aren't very many of
us on this newsgroup who can honestly say that we use proper netiquette
at all times!!!
Another thing, Glen: you've got a lot of nerve to tell Jay "until your
toy offers you some decent tools, so you can at least quote properly,
folks are going to look down on you." I have seen individuals on this
very newsgroup not use text quote although they have the means to do so.
Should we look "down" on those folks, too? Or should we turn our heads
when it comes to them?!?! While we're at it, why don't we just close
our eyes when it comes to a computer user not using proper netiquette,
but open our eyes when it comes to a Webtv'er not using proper
netiquette?!?!
Fearless Angel
a/k/a undau...@aol.com
----------------------------------------
"The toyolia (soul) would have no rainbow if the eyes had no tears."
Native American Proverb
Alice Lacour
Is pat Garrett a dj? promoter? If so there is a Pat Garrett in
Straustown Pa. Had a park up there I ve never been there but I have an
address for him here some place.
here it is
pat garrett
WWSM
box 84
Strausstown,Pa 19559
Give him a try ,he booked a lot of big shows last year, but I never got
up that way
Lonnie
Jay langford
Lonnie, all I know about him other than that he played "Dog-House" bass
in our band and his mother was a "Classical" music teacher. He also did
songs like; Smoke, Smoke, Smoke that cigarett. and other comical stuff.
I'll give that info a try; thanks, Jay
F.Gentry
and was also a D.J. He is now in Ashland Tenn. Might be related or
might be the same one.
Linda F. Cauthen
Glen Quarnstrom wrote:
>
> drmjo...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> >I have a computer *and* WebTv. I have to agree that WebTv is MUCH
> >faster in dealing
> >with newsgroup postings and MUCH easier to
> >use in reading through the newsgroup posts.
>
But Glen, it *is* possible if you don't waste valuable time quoting and
just post stupid one-liners that make no sense when separated from the
original post.
>
> >Maybe the major computer geeks aren't as smart as they assumed.
>
> Maybe you don't have a single clue what you're talking about, as
> usual.
> --
> gl...@cyberhighway.net
> http://www.cyberhighway.net/~glenq/
Especially considering how many of us bought the computer(s) for work,
so it pays for itself and the *fun* is a freebie.
Linda C.
Glen Quarnstrom
drmjo...@webtv.net wrote:
>I have a computer *and* WebTv. I have to agree that WebTv is MUCH
>faster in dealing
>with newsgroup postings and MUCH easier to
>use in reading through the newsgroup posts.
That's basically impossible.
>Maybe the major computer geeks aren't as smart as they assumed.
Glen Quarnstrom
drmjo...@webtv.net wrote:
[the usual drivel deleted in full]
You're a moron, you know that? Now see if you can figure out which
message of yours I'm replying to.
--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
http://www.cyberhighway.net/~glenq/
drmjo...@webtv.net
Glenq:
All of them?
drmj
Jay langford
Floyd said; :I worked with Skip Graves who played bass......."
The guy that played bass was Pat Garrett' a friend of Billy Graves that
played in theband in Okinawa. Can't find either one of them. Been a
little over 40 years! Could have "Kicked the bucket" by now. Jay
Alice Lacour
Skips daughter Cindi worked with the girl group Ann Jones and the
Western Sweethearts,Some place I have a couple 45 s by him, and Cindi is
on an album with Ann.
Billy Graves was from Georgetown Del. He was on tv with Dick Flood in
Wilm Del as the Blue Denims, then went to Town and Country Time in DC
as the Country Lads, they were on the Jimmy Dean morning show.when that
ended both went solo,Dick wrote Troubles Back In Town and had some good
records.Billy recorded something called the SHAG and has not
resurfaced any where. I heard he was back in Del but havent found
him.and Jay knew him in the service,I knew him and Dick here and in DC.
I saw Dick 20 years ago he was with the Wilburn Brothers show.Last I
heard he was suppose to be a park ranger in the Everglades or some
place.He was originally from Phila.In fact Dick Flood s Dad was a bank
Officer at Phila National bank I believe.
By now Ann Jones must be retired or dead,she was in Arizona.She was
guite a gal.
Take care
Lonnie Lynne LaCour
JRandorff
In article <34f72079...@news.cyberhighway.net>,
gl...@NOSPAMcyberhighway.net (Glen Quarnstrom) writes:
>With all due respect, son, most of you WebTV folks don't have the slightest
>clue how the 'net was intended to be used. Most of you probably haven't even
>read the newusers newsgroups about proper posting etiquette. And until your
>toy offers you some decent tools, so you can at least quote properly, folks
>are going to look down on you.
Glen,
The net was "intended" to be used for governmental and military purposes,
originally. It was text-only, and Lynx was the best browser around. Then it
was released to the public for educational purposes, it was STILL text only,
and Lynx was STILL the best browser around (how many people around here
actually know what Lynx is?). Then Mosaic came out as the first graphical
browser, accepting GIF87 as the only graphics format (that means big files, 256
colors max, and no animation or transparencies). This was also the influx of
HTML 2.0, with such tags as <IMG>, <FONT></FONT> and the likes. Then, with
Netscape, HTML 3.0 and 3.2 (we're now in 4.0), MSIE, Java, JavaScript, and free
homepages, the net has become what it is today. However, it was originally
"intended" for government, military, and education.
Are you using the net just for what it's intended for? Is anyone anymore?
Later,
~~James Michael Randorff (jran...@aol.com)
~~http://members.aol.com/jrandorff/index.html <-- my Homepage About My Singing
Career :)
~~http://members.aol.com/liiamccann/home.html <-- the Complete Unauthorized
Lila McCann Homepage :)
Jay langford
James wrote; "The net was intended to be used for
government............................."
Good post, James; very informative and enjoyable! Jay
Jay langford
"No quote" (don't know how)
I have just figgered you out, Glen. You're really not as bad as you
seem, you just like a good joust once in a while.
Jay
drmjo...@webtv.net
Glenq:
WebTv is an invaluable tool for networking...no matter what business
you're in. Therefore it
doesn't fall into the "toys only" category.
drmj
Scott Cason
Glen Quarnstrom wrote:
>
> drmjo...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> [the usual drivel deleted in full]
>
> You're a moron, you know that? Now see if you can figure out which
> message of yours I'm replying to.
Uh, that would be all of 'em?!
--
rgds,
Scott
WPGA AM/FM/TV
----
"Like a bat out of hell, I'll be gone when the morning comes"
NOTE: Remove the "X" from e-mail address to reply (spammers, ya know)
Glen Quarnstrom
unda...@webtv.net (Fearless Angel) wrote:
>gl...@NOSPAMcyberhighway.net (Glen Quarnstrom) wrote:
>
>>With all due respect to you son, most of you
>>WebTV folks don't have the slightest clue how
>>the 'net was intended to be used. Most of you
>>probably haven't even read the newusers
>>newsgroups about proper posting etiquette.
>>And until your toy offers you some decent
>>tools, so you can at least quote properly,
>>folks are going to look down on you.
>
>With all due respect to you, sir, there are just as many computer users
>(if not more) as WebTV users who also don't follow proper netiquette
Possibly. I don't think there's any way to demonstrate that, however.
>Another thing, Glen: you've got a lot of nerve to tell Jay "until your
>toy offers you some decent tools, so you can at least quote properly,
>folks are going to look down on you." I have seen individuals on this
>very newsgroup not use text quote although they have the means to do so.
>Should we look "down" on those folks, too? Or should we turn our heads
Damn right you should look down on them. They don't even have the
excuse of not having access to proper tools. I don't look down a bit
on that minority of WebTV users who overcome the handicaps inherent in
WebTV to post readable messages. And I've tweaked Stella a couple of
times for being unwilling or unable to quote correctly. This detracts
considerably from the readability of her posts, and causes me to skip
over them more than I would otherwise.
>when it comes to them?!?! While we're at it, why don't we just close
>our eyes when it comes to a computer user not using proper netiquette,
>but open our eyes when it comes to a Webtv'er not using proper
>netiquette?!?!
Now you're just being silly.
--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
http://www.cyberhighway.net/~glenq/
Glen Quarnstrom
"Linda F. Cauthen" <msl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Glen Quarnstrom wrote:
>>
>> drmjo...@webtv.net wrote:
>>
>> >I have a computer *and* WebTv. I have to agree that WebTv is MUCH
>> >faster in dealing
>> >with newsgroup postings and MUCH easier to
>> >use in reading through the newsgroup posts.
>>
>> That's basically impossible.
>
>But Glen, it *is* possible if you don't waste valuable time quoting and
>just post stupid one-liners that make no sense when separated from the
>original post.
I sit corrected.
>> >Maybe the major computer geeks aren't as smart as they assumed.
>>
>> Maybe you don't have a single clue what you're talking about, as
>> usual.
>Especially considering how many of us bought the computer(s) for work,
>so it pays for itself and the *fun* is a freebie.
Of course. A computer is a multipurpose tool, good for a nearly
infinite number of things, including playing on the Internet.
WebTV is a low-cost compromise that has no other purpose (AFAIK) than
to play on the Internet. Having to use a TV rather than a real
monitor is in itself a huge drawback that justifies having a real
computer. Can you watch TV and do WebTV at the same time? If not,
then you should also factor in the cost of another TV to the cost of
WebTV as compared with a computer.
--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
http://www.cyberhighway.net/~glenq/
Glen Quarnstrom
drmjo...@webtv.net wrote:
[something I can't figure out]
Huh?
--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
http://www.cyberhighway.net/~glenq/
Glen Quarnstrom
jran...@aol.com (JRandorff) wrote:
>In article <34f72079...@news.cyberhighway.net>,
>gl...@NOSPAMcyberhighway.net (Glen Quarnstrom) writes:
>
>>With all due respect, son, most of you WebTV folks don't have the slightest
>>clue how the 'net was intended to be used. Most of you probably haven't even
>>read the newusers newsgroups about proper posting etiquette. And until your
>>toy offers you some decent tools, so you can at least quote properly, folks
>>are going to look down on you.
>
>Glen,
> The net was "intended" to be used for governmental and military purposes,
>originally. It was text-only, and Lynx was the best browser around. Then
Were you around then? Neither was I. So whatever we know we read
about or learned from the OldTimers. Many WebTVers an AOLusers have
done neither. You help make my point.
>was released to the public for educational purposes, it was STILL text only,
>and Lynx was STILL the best browser around (how many people around here
>actually know what Lynx is?). Then Mosaic came out as the first graphical
>browser, accepting GIF87 as the only graphics format (that means big files, 256
>colors max, and no animation or transparencies). This was also the influx of
>HTML 2.0, with such tags as <IMG>, <FONT></FONT> and the likes. Then, with
>Netscape, HTML 3.0 and 3.2 (we're now in 4.0), MSIE, Java, JavaScript, and free
>homepages, the net has become what it is today. However, it was originally
>"intended" for government, military, and education.
>
> Are you using the net just for what it's intended for? Is anyone anymore?
I was talking about UseNet, which is NOT the same thing as the
Internet. Most of what you say above is irrelevant to my point.
--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
http://www.cyberhighway.net/~glenq/
Glen Quarnstrom
Gita...@webtv.net (Jay langford) wrote:
[guess]
Not really.
--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
http://www.cyberhighway.net/~glenq/
Fearless Angel
gl...@NOSPAMcyberhighway.net (Glen Quarnstrom), a/k/a The founding
father of Users Network netiquette :) wrote:
unda...@webtv.net (Fearless Angel) a/k/a undau...@aol.com wrote:
>Another thing, Glen: you've got a lot of nerve
>to tell Jay "until your toy offers you some
>decent tools, so you can at least quote
>properly, folks are going to "look down on
>you." I have seen individuals on this very
>newsgroup not use text quote although they
>have the means to do so. Should we look
>"down" on those folks, too?
>Damn right you should look down on them.
>They don't even have the excuse of not
>having access to proper tools.
Glen, if you think that I am going to "look down" on any individual who
chooses not to use text quoting capability, then you are wrong. If a
person doesn't want to use text quoting, you can't force them to use it!
>And I've tweaked Stella a couple of times for
>being unwilling or unable to quote correctly.
Well, I hope Stella "tweaks" you right back when you engage in improper
posting netiquette. :)
Fearless Angel
Glen Quarnstrom
drmjo...@webtv.net
Glenq:
No, it doesn't.
drmj
Glen Quarnstrom
Gita...@webtv.net (Jay langford) wrote:
>I have just figgered you out, Glen. You're really not as bad as you
>seem, you just like a good joust once in a while.
Nobody's THAT bad. Well, maybe one or two here...
--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
http://www.cyberhighway.net/~glenq/
Glen Quarnstrom
unda...@webtv.net (Fearless Angel), recognizing my superior
knowledge and authority, wrote:
>gl...@NOSPAMcyberhighway.net (Glen Quarnstrom), a/k/a The founding
>father of Users Network netiquette :) wrote:
>>Damn right you should look down on them.
>>They don't even have the excuse of not
>>having access to proper tools.
>Glen, if you think that I am going to "look down" on any individual who
>chooses not to use text quoting capability, then you are wrong. If a
So you approve of deliberate mediocrity? Do you accept this in
musical artists, too?
>person doesn't want to use text quoting, you can't force them to use it!
Well, that depends on just how much force you use.
>>And I've tweaked Stella a couple of times for
>>being unwilling or unable to quote correctly.
>
>
>
>Well, I hope Stella "tweaks" you right back when you engage in improper
>posting netiquette. :)
She's welcome to try, assuming she knows any more about netiquette
than she does about G*rth and S*zy.
BTW, the use of smilies is frowned upon in many of the more literate
newsgroups, too.
--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
http://www.cyberhighway.net/~glenq/
JRandorff
In article <34fd528f...@news.cyberhighway.net>,
gl...@NOSPAMcyberhighway.net (Glen Quarnstrom) writes:
>>I have a computer *and* WebTv. I have to agree that WebTv is MUCH
>>faster in dealing with newsgroup postings and MUCH easier to
>>use in reading through the newsgroup posts.
>
>That's basically impossible.
Actually, Glen, it's quite possible. WebTV is used for one thing, so processor
speed is not used on anything but the internet/usenet. With a computer, while
you are clicking a button, your computer is having to go through many complex
calculations, not only about the internet, but about keeping your Windows
Explorer from crashing, anything you might have in StartUp (i.e. MS Office 97
Taskbar), any other programs that might be running, etc. Keep in mind that,
back in 198X, Bill Gates made the oh-so-great statement "who could POSSIBLY
ever need more than 640K of RAM?!?" So, the base RAM for your computer, where
all your applications run, is only 640K, even if you have a whopping 64M
(64,000K) RAM in your system. The rest of your RAM goes into Extended Memory
(XMS RAM). So, if you are running a resourse hog program at the same time you
are running a Usenet browser, it is quite possible that your computer would run
slower, on Usenet, than a WebTV unit. Consider that, since the WebTV unit has
only one purpose, any and all RAM that it has is being devoted to one, and only
one, task. No need for Virtual RAM, no need for your hard disk sounding like a
sawmill, just plain ol' speed.
For the internet, WebTV is great (although if you wanna download something,
forget it), but for everything else, yes, it's computers all the way.
Lianne McNeil
On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 05:03:21 GMT, gl...@NOSPAMcyberhighway.net (Glen
Quarnstrom) wrote:
>So you approve of deliberate mediocrity? Do you accept this in
>musical artists, too?
So your scorn should be aimed towards the WebTV manufacturers and
designers -- not the users. If that is the way they can afford to be
online, it's not a character flaw. No one on the 'net scorns those
who use older, more limited computer systems, such as those that are
only ascii-based, etc., so why should they scorn WebTW users because
of their equipment's limitations?
>BTW, the use of smilies is frowned upon in many of the more literate
>newsgroups, too.
Not so, Glen. That is, mostly, a snobbish attitude that has evolved
on alt.folklore.urban, and is by no means a universal 'net standard.
In fact, the FAQs for new users suggest that smilies SHOULD be used:
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/usenet/usenet/primer/part1/faq.html
(also found at
http://www.netannounce.org/news.announce.newusers/archive/usenet/primer/part1)
Here is the relevant quote from "A Primer on How to Work With the
Usenet Community":
" Be Careful with Humor and Sarcasm.
" Without the voice inflections and body language of personal
communications, it is easy for a remark meant to be funny to be
misinterpreted. Subtle humor tends to get lost, so take steps to
make sure that people realize you are trying to be funny. The net
has developed a symbol called the smiley face. It looks like ":-)"
and points out sections of articles with humorous intent. No matter
how broad the humor or satire, it is safer to remind people that you
are being funny.
" But also be aware that quite frequently satire is posted without any
explicit indications. If an article outrages you strongly, you
should ask yourself if it just may have been unmarked satire.
Several self-proclaimed connoisseurs refuse to use smiley faces, so
take heed or you may make a temporary fool of yourself."
There is more in "Hints on writing style for Usenet," at:
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/usenet/usenet/writing-style/part1/faq.html
(http://www.netannounce.org/news.announce.newusers/archive/usenet/writing-style/part1)
"Net style:
" * Subtlety is not communicated well in written form - especially
over a computer. Remember, most people who will read your posting do
not know you.
" * The above applies to humor as well. (rec.humor, of course, not
included.) Smileys :-), frowns :-(, winks ;-) can sometimes avoid
confusion."
The FAQs on generally accepted norms for posting to Usenet are found
on news.announce.newusers, and also are archived at:
http://www.netannounce.org/news.announce.newusers/
and can also be found by doing a search for "Usenet" at:
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/usenet/FAQ-List.html
Lianne
Jay langford
James wrote; "Actually, Glen; it's quite possible.........." I didn't
know all that stuff, James. Thanks for "layin' it all out for all us
that don't know much about it;(if there are anybody besides me) It is
facinating to me. I can keep an Airplane safely operating, but know
absolutely nothing about this stuff. Thanks to whomever invented this
little box. (Now Linda and Glen, don't get excited!) Jay
drmjo...@webtv.net
James: (on: WebTv)
The Philips/Magnavox WebTv internet access
unit is equipped with an access port to which you may connect a printer
and download hardcopy. However, you cannot download to disk, at this
point. I wouldn't be surprised if it
becomes available, at some point, though. Also
the unit incorporates a sliding vertical door for
use with "smart card" technology. It's not just a
toy. And WebTv is an excellent internet provider, rarely being down.
drmj
Fearless Angel
gl...@NOSPAMcyberhighway.net (Glen Quarnstrom), founding father of
Usenet netiquette and Kung Fu expert, wrote:
unda...@webtv.net (Fearless Angel) a/k/a undau...@aol.com wrote:
>Glen, if you think that I am going to "look
>down" on any individual who chooses not
>to use text quoting capability, then you are
>wrong.
>So you approve of deliberate mediocrity?
>Do you accept this in musical artists, too?
First of all, I am doubtful that any musical artist is going to give a
*deliberate* mediocre performance. You might deem the artist's
performance as such; but I doubt that it was done intentionally.
As for the individual who chooses not to use text quoting capability, it
is a matter of personal choice and does not lend much weight to the
quality of how they respond in their posting. A person can execute a
well-written and logical response even though he/she did not quote the
text of the person to whom they were responding to, and vice versa.
>If a person doesn't want to use text quoting,
>you can't force them to use it!
>Well, that depends on how much force you
>use.
No matter how much force you use "Mr. Kung Fu of Words," you can't
change a zebra's stripes......well ok, you can if you use JASC Paint
Shop Pro. :)
>BTW, the use of smilies is frowned upon in
>many of the more literate newsgroups, too.
Oh yeah? Since when? Sheeez, the participants in rec.org.mensa
probably even use them. *Emoticas* are not :( upon. They are a
welcome form of language and necessity in helping to clarify what
otherwise might be misinterpreted by a reader as being just the opposite
of what was intended by the author.
Fearless Angel 0:-)
----------------------------------------
A proud supporting member of Cornell Feline Health Center.
Fearless Angel
westsi...@yahoo.USPAMBACKcom (Scott) wrote:
unda...@webtv.net (Fearless Angel) wrote:
>As for the individual who chooses not to use
>text quoting capability, it is a matter of
>personal choice and does not lend much
>weight to the quality of how they respond
>in their posting. A person can execute a
>well-written and logical response even
>though he/she did not quote the text of
>the person to whom they were responding
>to, and vice versa.
>But it may not mean much unless they quote
>what they are replying about.
If a person doesn't use text quoting ability to respond to another
individual's posting, then the person to whom he/she is responding to
will just have to look back at a previously made posting in the thread
to see if the response is relative to the issue or not.
I think that we are getting away from the main theme of this discussion:
Glen feels that we should "look down" on those individuals who do not
use text quoting capability, and I feel that we should not look down on
someone or castigate them simply because they choose not to use text
quoting capability; even if they have the means to do so.
But, in actuality, it goes even deeper than just an issue of someone
using or not using text quote capability. What it really boils down to
is this: None of us is perfect. I don't believe that any of us can
honestly say that we adhere to proper netiquette at all times on Usenet;
therefore, who are we to snub or ostracize someone else who is not using
so-called proper netiquette?!
It's just my humble opinion. :)
Fearless Angel
Scott
Fearless Angel <unda...@webtv.net> wrote
> is a matter of personal choice and does not lend much weight to the
> quality of how they respond in their posting. A person can execute a
> well-written and logical response even though he/she did not quote the
> text of the person to whom they were responding to, and vice versa.
But it may not mean much unless they quote what they were replying about.
Glen Quarnstrom
drmjo...@webtv.net wrote:
It's a toy. And unless you are using your computer for business, it's
a toy, too. Just a better, more efficient, and more versatile toy.
The ONLY thing WebTV has going for it is that it's cheap. Nothing
wrong with that; just don't keep trying to tell us what a wonderful
device it is, when all it is is a glorified Nintendo.
--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
http://www.cyberhighway.net/~glenq/
Glen Quarnstrom
jran...@aol.com (JRandorff) wrote:
>In article <34fd528f...@news.cyberhighway.net>,
>gl...@NOSPAMcyberhighway.net (Glen Quarnstrom) writes:
>
>>>I have a computer *and* WebTv. I have to agree that WebTv is MUCH
>>>faster in dealing with newsgroup postings and MUCH easier to
>>>use in reading through the newsgroup posts.
>>
>>That's basically impossible.
>
>Actually, Glen, it's quite possible. WebTV is used for one thing, so
Well, no, it isn't, unless you use a rather limited definition of
"possible."
Since _you_ can't _do_ mail offline with WevTV, let's look at that
scenario first.
> processor
>speed is not used on anything but the internet/usenet. With a computer, while
>you are clicking a button, your computer is having to go through many complex
>calculations, not only about the internet, but about keeping your Windows
>Explorer from crashing, anything you might have in StartUp (i.e. MS Office 97
The speed of a downloading a message from your ISP, even at 56k, is
far too slow to affect a 200MHz computer in any noticeable way. And
even at 14.4k, it can download messages far faster than you can read
them. So for reading mail online (an extremely inefficient method,
BTW), any possible difference between a computer and WebTV is too
small to be significant, and, in any case, is going to be far less
than variables in modem settings, connection speed, phone line noise,
and ISP loading, which may slow things down a lot.
Now we go to the case of off-line mail reading, which you can't even
do with WebTV. For instance, today I logged onto my ISP, started a
download of my e-mail, started a download of my UseNet stuff, and then
went to a couple of WWW sites with my browser. By this time my e-mail
was ready, so I started reading that. By the time I had finished
reading e-mail, my Newsgroups were all downloaded to disk, sorted,
filtered of hundreds lines of killfiled junk, and ready to read at my
leisure. Some people even download mail and news automatically while
they sleep, and have it all ready for them in the morning. Try that
with your TV toy. Also, I marked your message for reply several hours
ago. Then I went to the dentist, came home, ate supper, got more
e-mail and news, etc, and now I'm ready to answer it. If you did
that, you'd have to go back online to read the message and answer it,
so just that fact alone would have given me a HUGE advantage in speed.
You want fast? I can scroll through any group or message almost
instantaneously. Do you have a 1200 line binary you'd like to look
at? I can look at it, and then read several other messages in the
time it would take you just to download such a large file. I can also
organize and archive as many old messages as I have disk space for,
where I can search them for old messages or topics in which I'm
interested. Plus a whole lot of other stuff you can only dream of
with WebTV.
Sorry, but you're just plain wrong here. The reason WebTV is so cheap
is that it's a single-purpose compromise. It does the net fairly
well, but not nearly so well as a good computer and good software.
>Taskbar), any other programs that might be running, etc. Keep in mind that,
>back in 198X, Bill Gates made the oh-so-great statement "who could POSSIBLY
>ever need more than 640K of RAM?!?" So, the base RAM for your computer, where
>all your applications run, is only 640K, even if you have a whopping 64M
>(64,000K) RAM in your system. The rest of your RAM goes into Extended Memory
That's only true for old DOS software. It's meaningless with a modern
OS and 32 bit software. Where have you been, anyway?
>(XMS RAM). So, if you are running a resourse hog program at the same time you
>are running a Usenet browser, it is quite possible that your computer would
I don't do mail with a browser. I use a dedicated newsreader.
> run
>slower, on Usenet, than a WebTV unit. Consider that, since the WebTV unit
That's highly unlikely, as I've already explained. However, if I'm
multi-tasking, then news is likely a secondary task, and, since I'll
read it later, it won't slow me in the slightest. Even so, however,
it'd take a REAL resource hog to slow modem operations enough to
notice, since downloading doesn't put all that much demand on the CPU.
Even an old 386 can handle a modem transfer with plenty of cycles to
spare.
has
>only one purpose, any and all RAM that it has is being devoted to one, and only
>one, task. No need for Virtual RAM, no need for your hard disk sounding like a
>sawmill, just plain ol' speed.
Well, you're just plain wrong, unless you think we're all running
Commodore VIC-20 computers.
>For the internet, WebTV is great (although if you wanna download something,
>forget it), but for everything else, yes, it's computers all the way.
"Great" is a very subjective term. There's NO way in hell I'd stand
for doing UseNet online, after years of doing BBS and UseNet offline.
The lack of disk storage of mail and news, lack of quoting facilities,
and lack of any sort of killfile would make it unacceptable at any
price. If I had WebTV, I might use it for web surfing, or perhaps
even IRC, but no way in hell is it satisfactory for UseNet.
--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
http://www.cyberhighway.net/~glenq/
Glen Quarnstrom
unda...@webtv.net (Fearless Angel) wrote:
>gl...@NOSPAMcyberhighway.net (Glen Quarnstrom), founding father of
>Usenet netiquette and Kung Fu expert, wrote:
(Note that there's no emoticon here to indicate sarcasm or irony. Am I
supposed to think you are serious here? Of course not. The little
nudge in the ribs is perfectly obvious.)
>>So you approve of deliberate mediocrity?
>>Do you accept this in musical artists, too?
>First of all, I am doubtful that any musical artist is going to give a
>*deliberate* mediocre performance. You might deem the artist's
>performance as such; but I doubt that it was done intentionally.
Such as lip-synching? You _loved Milli Vanilli_, I bet.
>As for the individual who chooses not to use text quoting capability, it
>is a matter of personal choice and does not lend much weight to the
>quality of how they respond in their posting. A person can execute a
>well-written and logical response even though he/she did not quote the
>text of the person to whom they were responding to, and vice versa.
Well, it's possible, but rarely done. If you don't understand why
this is, I don't feel like explaining it right now.
>>If a person doesn't want to use text quoting,
>>you can't force them to use it!
>>Well, that depends on how much force you
>>use.
>No matter how much force you use "Mr. Kung Fu of Words," you can't
>change a zebra's stripes......well ok, you can if you use JASC Paint
>Shop Pro. :)
(Is that supposed to be a joke? It makes perfect sense without the
"colon close paren" at the end.)
I've seen many people "forced" to use proper formatting in UseNet.
Those who insist on being lousy writers soon find that few people are
reading their posts.
>>BTW, the use of smilies is frowned upon in
>>many of the more literate newsgroups, too.
>Oh yeah? Since when?
Since primitive man graduated from scratching pictures on cave walls
and invented a written language with which to communicate.
Shakespeare didn't use smilies. Mark Twain didn't need smilies to
convey humor, irony, or sarcasm. Wm. F. Buckley, George Will, Molly
Ivins, P.J. O'Rourke and hundreds of other writers seem to convey all
sorts of subtle emotions without resorting to emoticons.
Once you graduate from third grade, you shouldn't need crayons to
communicate, and grownups shouldn't need cartoons to post on UseNet.
>Sheeez, the participants in rec.org.mensa
>probably even use them.
I don't follow r.o.m, but I did lurk in the FIDO Mensa conference, and
I can assure you that emoticons were strictly verboten. Those who
used them were given a dose of vitriol that would make my posts look
like pablum by comparison.
>*Emoticas* are not :( upon.
They are by those who have a love of the language, and hate to see it
bastardized by the equivalent of cave drawings. Emoticons are the
equivalent of those idiot who have a bumper sticker that says "I HEART
my dog." Some folks carried around stickers with a picture of a screw
to paste over the heart. Now THAT'S funny!
>They are a
>welcome form of language and necessity in helping to clarify what
>otherwise might be misinterpreted by a reader as being just the opposite
>of what was intended by the author.
If (generic) you can't convey your meaning without crutches, perhaps
you should take a remedial writing course?
>Fearless Angel 0:-)
Now, you see, I understood your post perfectly without ANY need for
some silly chicken scratchings at the end of your sentences. And you
quoted and formatted your posts quite well, even with WebTV. So if
you can do it, why would you make excuses for those who won't at least
make the _effort_ to do so?
--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
http://www.cyberhighway.net/~glenq/
Glen Quarnstrom
marc...@seesig.pobox.com (Lianne McNeil) wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 05:03:21 GMT, gl...@NOSPAMcyberhighway.net (Glen
>Quarnstrom) wrote:
>
>>So you approve of deliberate mediocrity? Do you accept this in
>>musical artists, too?
>
>So your scorn should be aimed towards the WebTV manufacturers and
>designers -- not the users. If that is the way they can afford to be
No, scorn should be directed at those who put out slop instead of
doing their best, and then try to blame their tools, or use some other
lame excuse. I don't scorn WebTV users who make an effort to turn out
readable posts. In fact, I usually don't even notice the ISP of those
posters. But when I see some dork posting in HTML, omitting any sort
of reference, attribution, or other clue as to what they're talking
about, I look at the headers, and more often then not, it's a WebTV or
AOL poster. Both those services cater to the lowest common
denominator of user, and if those users can't rise above the handicap
imposed upon them by their inadequate tools, then they deserve
whatever ridicule they get.
>online, it's not a character flaw. No one on the 'net scorns those
>who use older, more limited computer systems, such as those that are
Oh, but they do. I used to post from a BBS with an interface to
UseNet. If you think WebTVers get grief, you should have seen what I
got. But instead of whining about the inevitable, I did as much as I
could to make my posts readable to the UseNet readers, even though my
software did not make it possible to be completely and transparently
compatible with UseNet protocols.
>only ascii-based, etc., so why should they scorn WebTW users because
>of their equipment's limitations?
They shouldn't. They should deride the feeble excuses used by WebTvers
and AOLusers to obscure the fact that they're too lazy or ignorant to
post readable, well formatted posts. The fact that SOME people can
and do post very readable, compatible posts from WebTV or AOL shoots
down the nonsense that it can't be done.
>>BTW, the use of smilies is frowned upon in many of the more literate
>>newsgroups, too.
>
>Not so, Glen. That is, mostly, a snobbish attitude that has evolved
>on alt.folklore.urban, and is by no means a universal 'net standard.
It's hardly on only afu. And it's hardly only on UseNet. Using
smilies is merely a crutch for poor writing.
===
"The English language, complete with irony, satire, and sarcasm, has
survived for centuries without smileys. Only the new crop of modern
computer geeks finds it impossible to detect a joke that is not
Clearly Labeled as such."
(Ray Shea on rec.music.misc)
===
>In fact, the FAQs for new users suggest that smilies SHOULD be used:
[...]
>" Be Careful with Humor and Sarcasm.
[snippage of self-serving nonsense that illustrates the dumbing down
of our educational system]
What that FAQ should have said is that if you have a thin skin, you
should stay the hell off of controversial newsgroups. If you can't
tell from the words that a comment is a joke, irony, sarcasm, or any
other of the subtleties of meaning of language, you are either humor
impaired, or the other person is a lousy writer. Or both.
Besides that, emoticons are so overused and misused that they're
almost completely useless, anyway. I've seen so many of them, and so
many weird permutations of them, that they're just so much "noise" to
me, and my mind filters them out pretty effectively. I've seen many a
flame war where folks tossed in a smiley occasionally, sort of like
punctuation, and it was painfully obvious that what was written was
intended to be a flame, not a joke.
See my comments in another post on this topic.
--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
http://www.cyberhighway.net/~glenq/
Fearless Angel
gl...@NOSPAMcyberhighway.net (Glen Quarnstrom) who remains the founding
father of Usenet netiquette, <just kidding!> wrote:
>Now, you see, I understood your post
>perfectly without ANY need for some
>silly chicken scratchings at the end of
>your sentences. And you quoted and
>formatted your posts quite well, even
>with WebTV. So, if you can do it,
>why would you make excuses for those
>who won't at least make the_ effort_ to
>do so?
Glen, I am not making any excuses whatsoever for anyone who does not use
text quoting capability. I am merely stating to you that it is their
right of choice to use text quoting or to not use text quoting and that
if they do not use text quoting, they shouldn't be castigated for it.
But, on the other hand, you also have the right to say whatever you wish
to any individual who does not use text quoting capability, just as I
have the right to let you know that I think it is unfair of you to look
down on someone who does not follow proper netiquette when we are all
guilty of engaging in improper netiquette in one form or another.
I think that we both know that you are not going to change your position
on this matter and I am not going to change mine, either. Therefore, I
am finished with this discussion. But, I would like you to know that
there are no hard feelings on my part towards you and I hope that you
feel the same. However, I will continue to use emoticons in my
postings and if you don't like it, then you will just have to "look
down" on me, too. :(
drmjo...@webtv.net
Glenq:
Well, I say your toilet is a toy unless you're doing your business on
it.
drmj
JRandorff
In article <350c6446...@news.cyberhighway.net>,
gl...@NOSPAMcyberhighway.net (Glen Quarnstrom) writes:
>>The net was "intended" to be used for governmental and military
>>purposes, originally. It was text-only, and Lynx was the best browser
>>around. Then
>
>Were you around then? Neither was I. So whatever we know we
>read about or learned from the OldTimers. Many WebTVers an AOLusers
>have done neither. You help make my point.
Was I around in the late 1970's? Yeah, I was born then, and some claim that I
popped out with a keyboard attached to my fingers. I was around then, and
unless you are younger than I am, Glen (I don't think you are, but I don't
think I've ever actually known your age), you were around then too. BTW, I use
Lynx and Telnet to view pages regularly, just to see how they coincide (there
are quite a few Unix system runners out there that view pages through Lynx,
just so they don't have to waste their friggin time with graphics, and can get
information -- I also try to design my pages to be compatible with both new
browsers, such as IE4 and NN4, older graphical browsers, such as NN2 and
Mosaic, and text-only browsers, such as Telnet and Lynx). You are right, many
WebTV'ers and AOL'ers haven't researched the history of the internet --
however, most local ISP connectors haven't researched the history of the
internet, either. Tell me, Glen, do you know what a Gopher page server is used
for?
>>was released to the public for educational purposes, it was STILL text only,
>>and Lynx was STILL the best browser around (how many people around here
>>actually know what Lynx is?). Then Mosaic came out as the first graphical
>>browser, accepting GIF87 as the only graphics format (that means big files,
256
>>colors max, and no animation or transparencies). This was also the influx of
>>HTML 2.0, with such tags as <IMG>, and the likes. Then, with
>>Netscape, HTML 3.0 and 3.2 (we're now in 4.0), MSIE, Java, JavaScript, and
free
>>homepages, the net has become what it is today. However, it was originally
>>"intended" for government, military, and education.
>>
>> Are you using the net just for what it's intended for? Is anyone
anymore?
>
>I was talking about UseNet, which is NOT the same thing as the
>Internet. Most of what you say above is irrelevant to my point.
You were saying that WebTV is not as good for the internet, and is not as fast,
and that WebTV'ers aren't and cannot use the internet for what it was intended
for. Well, if you are only talking about UseNet, then, because it cannot
quote, you are correct.
JRandorff
In article <3516c6c9...@news.cyberhighway.net>,
gl...@NOSPAMcyberhighway.net (Glen Quarnstrom) writes:
>Gita...@webtv.net (Jay langford) wrote:
>
>[guess]
>
>Not really.
Since you're trying to prove this oddball point about quoting, Glen, I'm gonna
guess that you were talking about his response to my message, saying that it
was both educational and useful. Since you claim not really, should I assume
that you are up on the history of the internet? Would you be willing to submit
to a short quiz on the past and present history of the internet and its usage?
JRandorff
In article <3506d48d...@news.cyberhighway.net>,
gl...@NOSPAMcyberhighway.net (Glen Quarnstrom) writes:
>BTW, the use of smilies is frowned upon in many of the more
>literate newsgroups, too.
Actually, Glen, smilies are frowned upon in more of the snobbish newsgroups,
but hardly in any of the more literate newsgroups. Let's see, off the top of
my head, here are five very literate and educated newsgroups that LOVE to use
smilies:
comp.lang.java
comp.lang.javascript
comp.authoring.www.infosystems.html
alt.folklore.gemstones
alt.folklore.aromatherapy
:) :~) :-) :o) =) }:^)> 8)
Pat Homsey
In article <6d585p$n5n$1...@newsd-142.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Fearless Angel <unda...@webtv.net> wrote:
>>A person can execute a
>>well-written and logical response even
>>though he/she did not quote the text of
>>the person to whom they were responding
>>to, and vice versa.
>
Precisely.
>
>If a person doesn't use text quoting ability to respond to another
>individual's posting, then the person to whom he/she is responding to
>will just have to look back at a previously made posting in the thread
>to see if the response is relative to the issue or not.
No, I don't think so. It is time consuming to trace back the
previous article to see what the heck an unquoted post is talking
about! I don't spend more than 20 minutes
going through all of the newsgroups I subscribe to and it's damn
irritating to follow a thread and see posts unquoted and contain
html, etc.
Those posts get skipped without reading. Is that what you (the
people who do this) want other people to do with your comments?
>I think that we are getting away from the main theme of this discussion:
>Glen feels that we should "look down" on those individuals who do not
>use text quoting capability, and I feel that we should not look down on
>someone or castigate them simply because they choose not to use text
>quoting capability; even if they have the means to do so.
I not only "look down", I skip the posts. It's not worth my time
to pursue what they're talking about if they can't even give me (the
reader) the courtesy of quoting.
>But, in actuality, it goes even deeper than just an issue of someone
>using or not using text quote capability. What it really boils down to
>is this: None of us is perfect. I don't believe that any of us can
>honestly say that we adhere to proper netiquette at all times on Usenet;
>therefore, who are we to snub or ostracize someone else who is not using
>so-called proper netiquette?!
Sure, everyone makes mistakes but I can not and will not bother with
people who won't even make an effort to be understood. The people
who do it *all* of the time become known after a while and ignored.
Patti
Luvless
Fearless Angel wrote:
> A proud supporting member of Cornell Feline Health Center.
And I would urge everyone to support feline health centers all across
our great nation.
After all, happiness is a healthy pussy!
-Luvless
Alice Lacour
I am sick of computer Elitests. And then we usually find out their jobs
paid for their toy. And 90 per cent of the computer users I know have a
toy, Games, etc.
I dont happen to work in a field where my boss bought my computer or I
can take it as a tax write off(Legally).I also dont have the time with
the complexity of making a living, learn all the crap computers need.and
I do own an IBM compatible that is by todays standard obsoletel.
Most folks that get Webtv got it strictly for the internet,inexpensive,
easy to use, and not obsolete before its paid for.It has been a real
blessing to many seniors who are not computer literate,but now use the
internet.People whose jobs didnt need computer literacy,and then some of
us just dont have 1500 to 1800 up to get and maintain a computer,have
other priorities.
Why dont all computer snobs just make a group for them sleves and send
miles of worthless guotes, and previous letters to each other.It seems
to me if any one has an IQ they can tell from a heading what is being
answered.I dont need to read the same long post in every reply.
This WEBTV computer bashing gets very old.and well tells me guite a bit
about some of the elitests
Lonnie
My "under construction" homepage <g> :
http://www.geocities.com/broadway/4707/
Jay langford
Patti; Since you won't read this without a "Quote", I won't say
anything. Jay
Sherryl J
I hear you, Lonnie! It shouldn't matter a bit what server or means anyone
uses to post or read, it's the content of those posts that matter, nothing
else. Hope to see you and others like you, here for a long time, sharing
your thoughts with the rest of us. Thanks!
Sherryl
Alice Lacour wrote in message
<6d6ibd$gh9$1...@newsd-143.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Linda F. Cauthen
Alice Lacour wrote:
>
> I am sick of computer Elitests.
I'm sick of posters who make no sense.
And then we usually find out their jobs
> paid for their toy.
Jealous. huh? Like if your job paid for your car, you'd turn it down.
And 90 per cent of the computer users I know have a
> toy, Games, etc.
So what? You use your toy, we use ours.
>
> I dont happen to work in a field where my boss bought my computer or I
> can take it as a tax write off(Legally).
Tough.
I also dont have the time with
> the complexity of making a living, learn all the crap computers need.
What kind of job do you have that you don't have to learn *any* computer
skills? Nowadays you need computer skills to work at McDonalds. Most of
us learned ours on company time or took courses paid for by the company.
Sounds like yours doesn't think enough of your potential to get you any
training.
And isn't it strange that people who would applaud others for getting
their GED or working for their college degree call those of us who have
worked to improve and upgrade our computer skills "elitists" and
"snobs?"
and
> I do own an IBM compatible that is by todays standard obsoletel.
> Most folks that get Webtv got it strictly for the internet,inexpensive,
> easy to use, and not obsolete before its paid for.
My computer was paid for by the job I used it on the next week. And it's
still not obsolete after three years.I have a laptop I'm still using
after six years. Your information is woefully inaccurate.
It has been a real
> blessing to many seniors who are not computer literate,but now use the
> internet.
So they can talk to 12 year olds who are much more computer literate
than any of us?
People whose jobs didnt need computer literacy,and then some of
> us just dont have 1500 to 1800 up to get and maintain a computer,have
> other priorities.
Like spending hours on Usenet?
> Why dont all computer snobs just make a group for them sleves and send
> miles of worthless guotes, and previous letters to each other.
If it happens, sign me up. It sounds like you consider anyone who's more
computer-literate than you to be a "computer snob." Which, from your
post above, is practically anybody under 80 with a job.
It seems
> to me if any one has an IQ they can tell from a heading what is being
> answered.
Not if there are 100 posts in a thread that has been veering in
different dirctions for a month. Or when the response is "That's right"
or "You're full of crap." How the hell is anyone supposed to match these
responses up to one of the 100 previous responses without going to
DejaNews and viewing the entire thread?
>I dont need to read the same long post in every reply.
But we do need to see the section to which you're replying, and not just
your misquoted version of it.
> This WEBTV computer bashing gets very old.and well tells me guite a bit
> about some of the elitests
> Lonnie
>
This "computer snob" bashing has long since grown old and tells us that
many Web-TVers refuse to come into the 90s and learn computer skills. In
another five years, not knowing how to use a computer will be like not
knowing how to drive a car. Do you consider anyone who drives more
skillfully than you do an "auto snob?"
Linda C. (proudly proficient in Quark XPress for the Mac and all the
stuff that goes with it)
Linda F. Cauthen
Great post, Patti. Do these people really think we're going to go thru
DejaNews just to find out what the hell they're talking about?
You're right - it's much less trouble to just killfile them or ignore
their posts.
Linda C.
Stacy Pleasant
I have a computer and Webtv, so what does that make me?
Ray Zuniga
In article <35253916...@news.cyberhighway.net>,
Glen Quarnstrom <address@sig> wrote:
>marc...@seesig.pobox.com (Lianne McNeil) wrote:
Hi Glen,
I agree with your point about Usenet users being able to post so
that others can understand the flow of a thread. Even when using
the worst of systems out there, users have the ability to make
their posts readable and understandable in the flow of a thread
with proper quoting and the like. Sometimes it does take more work
but I'll always appreciate reading the post from the person who
attempts to make the post understandable in a given context, then
from one who doesn't.
<smiley debate>
>>Not so, Glen. That is, mostly, a snobbish attitude that has evolved
>>on alt.folklore.urban, and is by no means a universal 'net standard.
>
>It's hardly on only afu. And it's hardly only on UseNet. Using
>smilies is merely a crutch for poor writing.
In order for me to understand your point, I have to ask. Do you
expect everyone who posts to Usenet to be a good writer, or even
anyone who writes a hand written letter to someone? That
seems a bit snobbish to me and I'd have to agree with Lianne here.
Usenet is made up of all types of people and I think part of the
value of it, is to get some of those opinions and facts from "all of
the above". Not just those who meet a certain criteria.
Personally I wouldn't have it any other way and even though trying
to follow some of the threads can be painful at times, it's worth
it to me. I value the diversity found on Usenet and also the
diversity found in every day life.
>===
>"The English language, complete with irony, satire, and sarcasm, has
> survived for centuries without smileys. Only the new crop of modern
> computer geeks finds it impossible to detect a joke that is not
> Clearly Labeled as such."
> (Ray Shea on rec.music.misc)
>===
So Ray Shea is the be all and know all of writing? There are many
different types of writing and writing styles and not all humor or
sarcasm is understood by every reader no matter how well written
the item. You have to take into account that Usenet is worldwide
and some people in other parts of the world may or may not
completely understand what it being said. Yes you can also blame
it on intelligence or whatever else you like. It's still a fact,
not everyone on Usenet has the same intelligence level or even the
ability to comprehend as everyone else. The reasons for this will
vary from individual to individual.
>>In fact, the FAQs for new users suggest that smilies SHOULD be used:
>
>[...]
>
>>" Be Careful with Humor and Sarcasm.
>
>[snippage of self-serving nonsense that illustrates the dumbing down
>of our educational system]
I understand the point your trying to make here. I just don't
agree with it. Yes it would be nice if we all have a higher
education, but as I said before Usenet is made up of all different
walks of life and this just isn't the case. Some of us don't have
that higher education. Children post here as well as people who
don't have as complete an education as you might like. There are
those who are mentally handicapped on many different levels. Does
this mean their opinions aren't worth much, or they shouldn't
bother posting? Again I say, not to me. Why not just get a
moderator to decide which posts are well written enough to make it
on to Usenet?
>What that FAQ should have said is that if you have a thin skin, you
>should stay the hell off of controversial newsgroups. If you can't
>tell from the words that a comment is a joke, irony, sarcasm, or any
>other of the subtleties of meaning of language, you are either humor
>impaired, or the other person is a lousy writer. Or both.
So what about the people who use English as their second or even
third language? I'm sure some of those people have high
education levels too. They will probably never master the language as
well as I would master Spanish or any other language that I don't
speak daily. Not everyone is able to grasp all forms of humor
either. There are things in our society here in the USA that we
might think as funny but someone else from another country may not
chuckle even if they did completely understand what was said.
Humor is not necessarily an international language.
>Besides that, emoticons are so overused and misused that they're
>almost completely useless, anyway. I've seen so many of them, and so
>many weird permutations of them, that they're just so much "noise" to
>me, and my mind filters them out pretty effectively. I've seen many a
>flame war where folks tossed in a smiley occasionally, sort of like
>punctuation, and it was painfully obvious that what was written was
>intended to be a flame, not a joke.
I won't argue with this, I'm sure they are overused. Still I don't
mind them and I won't mind seeing them. Call them a crutch if you
like but I think at times they can be effective in getting a meaning
across. If your mind filters them out so effectively, then why
even bother complaining about them?
>See my comments in another post on this topic.
A pointer would have been nice! ;)
I didn't really care if you put a pointer in or not. You've
commented so much about making things easier to understand and read
that I'd thought I'd poke a little fun at you for making me work to
go find your other comments. Just to make things agreeable, you
can say I used the smiley above to make up for my poor writing
ability.
Take care,
:)
Fearless Angel
tw...@crosslink.net (Luvless) wrote:
>And I would urge everyone to support feline
>health centers all across our great nation.
>After all, happiness is a healthy pussy!
>Luvless
Well then, just send in your donation to Cornell so that they will be
able to continue with research that will enable pussies to remain
healthy and happy! :)
Fearless Angel
----------------------------------------
A proud supporting member of Cornell Feline Health Center.
Lianne McNeil
On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 04:41:20 GMT, gl...@NOSPAMcyberhighway.net (Glen
Quarnstrom) wrote:
>It's hardly on only afu. And it's hardly only on UseNet. Using
>smilies is merely a crutch for poor writing.
It is the responsibility of the communicator to make their
communication as clear as possible. It is sometimes impossible to
convey with only text, what one usually conveys with words,
inflection, tone, facial expression and body language. So if a smilie
is needed to communicate most accurately, it should be used.
Smilies are no more a crutch than punctuation is.
Since words can be interpreted so many different ways, what may seem
"obvious" to you, may in fact be meant differently or even, the
opposite, from the way you interpreted it. You don't have to use
emoticons, but that doesn't make it wrong for others to use them.
(And I am not surprised that you frequently seem to be misunderstood,
here on rmcw.)
Lianne
Fearless Angel
saa...@mtfmb.att.com (Pat Homsey) writes:
unda...@webtv.net wrote:
>A person can execute a well-written and
>logical response even though he/she did not
>quote the text of the person to whom they
>were responding to, and vice versa.
>But, it may not mean much unless they quote
>what they are replying about.
I didn't write this last sentence. Scott wrote it and I quoted it and
responded to it. I just wanted to clarify that.
>Those posts get skipped without reading. Is
>that what you (the people who do this) want
>other people to do with your comments?
I use text quote capability, so you will have to ask the individuals who
do not use it if they mind people ignoring their postings. But, if I
didn't use text quoting capability, I would have to say that it wouldn't
bother me in the least if my posts were ignored.
>I not only "look down," I skip the posts.
If you want to "look down" on a person who does not use text quoting or
ignore their postings, you have that right. However, I do not share the
same view. In other words, I am not going to snub, ostracize or ignore
an individual who does not use text quoting.
Lianne McNeil
>If a person doesn't use text quoting ability to respond to another
>individual's posting, then the person to whom he/she is responding to
>will just have to look back at a previously made posting in the thread
>to see if the response is relative to the issue or not.
Except it's not quite that simple. E-mail and postings travel various
routes from the point of being sent and the point of arriving in
someone's newsreader or mailbox. Because of this, they don't arrive
on the various servers in the same order, and sometimes there will be
quite a delay before they show up on some servers. And some never
show up at all. When a posting is made without any reference to the
posting that inspired it, sometimes it will appear to apply to several
postings in the thread -- and depending on which one, it can be seen
as being insulting, in agreement or just irrelevant. And it's also
difficult to remember the exact points made in a message that was
posted several days prior to when you see the response. I always keep
a copy of my postings, so I can refer back if I've forgotten what I
wrote, but I'm not sure everyone else is able to do the same. Also,
postings made to public newsgroups are meant for public conversation,
so anyone should be able to follow the exchange, not just the original
poster.
>I think that we are getting away from the main theme of this discussion:
>Glen feels that we should "look down" on those individuals who do not
>use text quoting capability,...
I don't think we should "look down" on someone just because they use
WebTV. Several WebTV users have managed to communicate well in spite
of their equipment's limitations. So all WebTV users should not be
put down in a negative generalization about WebTV users.
Lianne
Dick Campagna
Stacy Pleasant <sb...@webtv.net> wrote in article
<6d6ude$5od$1...@newsd-161.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
> I have a computer and Webtv, so what does that make me?
Poorer than someone who only has one of 'em?
Dick Campagna
Alice Lacour
To Linda KISS MY (.)
all your posts are in my skip file
Rick Stricker
I was going to post my two cents worth on this, but FA beat me to it.
Again, we have someone trying to demonstrate their alleged
"sophistication" by denigrating others. Emoticons are part of today's
online culture, and when used judiciously, they're only frowned upon
by the REALLY anal-retentive.
;->
- Rick Stricker, Keyboards
Branded Just
http://www.lakeshoreconn.com/brandedj
For Rock'n Country Music
Fearless Angel <unda...@webtv.net> wrote in article
<6d4ok1$4re$1...@newsd-144.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
>
> >BTW, the use of smilies is frowned upon in
> >many of the more literate newsgroups, too.
>
> Oh yeah? Since when? Sheeez, the participants in rec.org.mensa
> probably even use them. *Emoticas* are not :( upon. They are a
Rick Stricker
> >As for the individual who chooses not to use
> >text quoting capability, it is a matter of
> >personal choice and does not lend much
> >weight to the quality of how they respond
> >in their posting. A person can execute a
> >well-written and logical response even
> >though he/she did not quote the text of
> >the person to whom they were responding
> >to, and vice versa.
If the previous message is lost (previously viewed,
expired, whatever), then the original flavor of the
message is gone.
Life is short, and having to go look up the original
message is a waste of time.
If someone chooses not to quote, that's fine.
However this makes it VERY easy for the thread
to become very confusing. The more experienced
net-heads understand this.
We can't force people to quote but we don't have
to read their messages either. If one wants to be
a useful thread participant, then they need to be
as clear as possible about what's being said.
(and if that includes using emoticons, then so
be it)
I won't even comment on the pseudo-anarchists
to refuse to quote simply because they consider
it a mark of "individuality". :-P
> >But it may not mean much unless they quote
> >what they are replying about.
Fearless Angel <unda...@webtv.net> wrote...
> If a person doesn't use text quoting ability to respond to another
> individual's posting, then the person to whom he/she is responding to
> will just have to look back at a previously made posting in the thread
> to see if the response is relative to the issue or not.
It's not that easy, nor should it be necessary. See above.
> I think that we are getting away from the main theme of this discussion:
> Glen feels that we should "look down" on those individuals who do not
> use text quoting capability, and I feel that we should not look down on
> someone or castigate them simply because they choose not to use text
> quoting capability; even if they have the means to do so.
Why not? They're being deliberately anti-social.
> But, in actuality, it goes even deeper than just an issue of someone
> using or not using text quote capability. What it really boils down to
> is this: None of us is perfect. I don't believe that any of us can
> honestly say that we adhere to proper netiquette at all times on Usenet;
> therefore, who are we to snub or ostracize someone else who is not using
> so-called proper netiquette?!
None of us are perfect, but this isn't an issue of perfection. If we're
to communicate effectively, then certain minimal standards must be
applied.
> It's just my humble opinion. :)
I've *never* been accused of being humble! ;->
- Rick Stricker, keyboards
Rick Stricker
Yes! Three.
<posted without quoting - can anyone tell what I'm replying to?>
Rick Stricker
If your posts are being ignored and you know it, then your typing would
be in vain. In your case that'd be a sad waste of time.
I enjoy your posts, but you missed the boat on this one. Why on earth
would anyone post a message, knowing that nobody is reading their
posts, and nobody cares?
- Rick Stricker, keyboards
Branded Just
http://www.lakeshoreconn.com/brandedj
For Rock'n Country Music
Fearless Angel <unda...@webtv.net> wrote in article
<6d73d8$q81$1...@newsd-141.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Rick Stricker
I'll second that. It's the snobs that look down on emoticons,
and snobbishness does not automatically equate to literacy.
I wouldn't put an emoticon on a business letter, but in a
newsgroup? Gimme a break - there's no problem!
My personal emoticon:
( ;->#
(bald on top, fuzzy chin, with a happy wink & a silly grin)
If some pseudo-intellectual chooses to frown on this, that's
tough - get over it.
- Rick Stricker, Keyboards
Branded Just
http://www.lakeshoreconn.com/brandedj
For Rock'n Country Music
JRandorff <jran...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19980227110...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> In article <3506d48d...@news.cyberhighway.net>,
> gl...@NOSPAMcyberhighway.net (Glen Quarnstrom) writes:
>
> >BTW, the use of smilies is frowned upon in many of the more
> >literate newsgroups, too.
>
Glen Quarnstrom
drmjo...@webtv.net wrote:
We don't care to know about your perverted hobbies, duhmj. This is a
family newsgroup, after all.
--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
http://www.cyberhighway.net/~glenq/
Glen Quarnstrom
jran...@aol.com (JRandorff) wrote:
[guess again]
No.
--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
http://www.cyberhighway.net/~glenq/
Glen Quarnstrom
r...@seepost.com (Ray Zuniga) wrote:
>In article <35253916...@news.cyberhighway.net>,
>Glen Quarnstrom <address@sig> wrote:
>Hi Glen,
>I agree with your point about Usenet users being able to post so
>that others can understand the flow of a thread. Even when using
[...]
><smiley debate>
>>It's hardly on only afu. And it's hardly only on UseNet. Using
>>smilies is merely a crutch for poor writing.
>
>In order for me to understand your point, I have to ask. Do you
>expect everyone who posts to Usenet to be a good writer, or even
No, but I expect them to care enough about what they're saying that
they try their best to express their thoughts in as clear a manner as
possible.
>anyone who writes a hand written letter to someone? That
I don't care what you do in a hand written letter. This stuff goes
all over the world, and is archived for eternity (more or less) in
places like Deja News? Don't you want those folks in 2198 who read
your posts to think you were a pretty cool writer? Have you seen the
TV programs about the Civil War that include portions of letters
written by soldiers? It seems that those folks were far better
writers than most college graduates these days.
>it to me. I value the diversity found on Usenet and also the
>diversity found in every day life.
You don't need emoticons for diversity. Just the opposite, in fact.
It's far more effective to search for exactly the right word or phrase
than to just fall back on a lame cliche. Emoticon use is just a lazy
acceptance of the lowest common denominator.
>>===
>>"The English language, complete with irony, satire, and sarcasm, has
>> survived for centuries without smileys. Only the new crop of modern
>> computer geeks finds it impossible to detect a joke that is not
>> Clearly Labeled as such."
>> (Ray Shea on rec.music.misc)
>>===
>
>So Ray Shea is the be all and know all of writing? There are many
Nope. He just wrote a damn good, cogent, concise paragraph on the
topic, and I gave proper attribution. I don't have a clue who Ray
Shea is. I copied that quote from somebody's sig file.
>different types of writing and writing styles and not all humor or
>sarcasm is understood by every reader no matter how well written
>the item. You have to take into account that Usenet is worldwide
Adding some silly emoticon won't help anyone understand it better.
Adding a label "This Is A Joke" won't help a bit in making something
funny that isn't funny on its face.
>that higher education. Children post here as well as people who
>don't have as complete an education as you might like. There are
So we should all write to the level of a 7 year old child? Should I
write like a pre-pubescent girl just because a lot of the folks in
this newsgroup seem to have that mentality? That'd be pretty silly
for a 63 year old man, I'd say.
>speak daily. Not everyone is able to grasp all forms of humor
>either. There are things in our society here in the USA that we
>might think as funny but someone else from another country may not
>chuckle even if they did completely understand what was said.
>Humor is not necessarily an international language.
See above. Labeling it won't make it funny if it wasn't funny to
start with.
>>Besides that, emoticons are so overused and misused that they're
>>almost completely useless, anyway. I've seen so many of them, and so
>I won't argue with this, I'm sure they are overused. Still I don't
>mind them and I won't mind seeing them. Call them a crutch if you
>like but I think at times they can be effective in getting a meaning
>across. If your mind filters them out so effectively, then why
>even bother complaining about them?
I dunno. Because it came up in the conversation, I guess.
>>See my comments in another post on this topic.
>
>A pointer would have been nice! ;)
>
>I didn't really care if you put a pointer in or not. You've
>commented so much about making things easier to understand and read
>that I'd thought I'd poke a little fun at you for making me work to
>go find your other comments. Just to make things agreeable, you
>can say I used the smiley above to make up for my poor writing
>ability.
Well, you wasted your time, because I didn't notice it until you
called my attention to it. Besides, that statement was not a joke.
It's a valid point, and I could have made life easier for a few people
if I'd been more explicit in where the comments could be found.
>:)
(*)(*) - Dolly Parton
|..| - Twiggy
\\ @!@ // - Richard Nixon
--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
http://www.cyberhighway.net/~glenq/
Glen Quarnstrom
unda...@webtv.net (Fearless Angel) wrote:
>gl...@NOSPAMcyberhighway.net (Glen Quarnstrom) who remains the founding
>father of Usenet netiquette, <just kidding!> wrote:
>
>>Now, you see, I understood your post
>>perfectly without ANY need for some
>>silly chicken scratchings at the end of
>>your sentences. And you quoted and
>>formatted your posts quite well, even
>>with WebTV. So, if you can do it,
>>why would you make excuses for those
>>who won't at least make the_ effort_ to
>>do so?
>Glen, I am not making any excuses whatsoever for anyone who does not use
>text quoting capability. I am merely stating to you that it is their
>right of choice to use text quoting or to not use text quoting and that
>if they do not use text quoting, they shouldn't be castigated for it.
I'm merely exercising my right of choice to castigate those who are
too lazy to do their best work. It's an insult to the readers to toss
out garbage and expect them to enjoy it. When you go to a nice place
for dinner, do you tolerate a sloppy waiter, rude staff, and a cook
that just slaps stuff together in a haphazard way because he's to
tired or lazy that day to do it properly? Would you go back there to
eat a second time?
>But, on the other hand, you also have the right to say whatever you wish
>to any individual who does not use text quoting capability, just as I
>have the right to let you know that I think it is unfair of you to look
>down on someone who does not follow proper netiquette when we are all
>guilty of engaging in improper netiquette in one form or another.
We all make mistakes. That's not the same thing as deliberately
refusing to follow conventions that make it easier to read hundreds of
messages each day.
>I think that we both know that you are not going to change your position
>on this matter and I am not going to change mine, either. Therefore, I
>am finished with this discussion. But, I would like you to know that
>there are no hard feelings on my part towards you and I hope that you
>feel the same. However, I will continue to use emoticons in my
>postings and if you don't like it, then you will just have to "look
>down" on me, too. :(
I certainly don't look down on someone for what they say, and you have
expressed your opinion in a cogent, intelligent, well-formatted
manner. The fact that you're wrong doesn't detract at all from that
fact, and, after all, that's the whole point of what I've been saying.
--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
http://www.cyberhighway.net/~glenq/
Glen Quarnstrom
unda...@webtv.net (Fearless Angel) wrote:
>westsi...@yahoo.USPAMBACKcom (Scott) wrote:
>>But it may not mean much unless they quote
>>what they are replying about.
>If a person doesn't use text quoting ability to respond to another
>individual's posting, then the person to whom he/she is responding to
>will just have to look back at a previously made posting in the thread
>to see if the response is relative to the issue or not.
So hundreds or thousands of people should go to a lot of extra time
and trouble because one person is too lazy or ignorant to do a proper
job of editing?
>I think that we are getting away from the main theme of this discussion:
>Glen feels that we should "look down" on those individuals who do not
>use text quoting capability, and I feel that we should not look down on
No, I didn't say that, exactly. I said that people should strive to
do their best to write clearly, and make it easy for the readers to
see what they're talking about. Readers should not have to suffer
because of lazy, sloppy writers.
>someone or castigate them simply because they choose not to use text
>quoting capability; even if they have the means to do so.
I wonder what your boss would say if you brought that attitude to your
job?
>But, in actuality, it goes even deeper than just an issue of someone
>using or not using text quote capability. What it really boils down to
>is this: None of us is perfect. I don't believe that any of us can
What it boils down to is whether you have enough respect for yourself
and others to do your best at conveying your message to the readers.
If you do it well, you'll have lots of folks reading your messages and
responding to them. If you do a sloppy job, people will skip your
posts, killfile you, or flame you. Which do you prefer?
>honestly say that we adhere to proper netiquette at all times on Usenet;
>therefore, who are we to snub or ostracize someone else who is not using
>so-called proper netiquette?!
Would you snub or ostracize somebody who urinated on the floor in a
public restaurant? After all, it's just a small violation of
etiquette.
--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
http://www.cyberhighway.net/~glenq/
Glen Quarnstrom
jran...@aol.com (JRandorff) wrote:
>In article <3506d48d...@news.cyberhighway.net>,
>gl...@NOSPAMcyberhighway.net (Glen Quarnstrom) writes:
>
>>BTW, the use of smilies is frowned upon in many of the more
>>literate newsgroups, too.
>
>Actually, Glen, smilies are frowned upon in more of the snobbish newsgroups,
Snobbery has nothing to do with it.
>but hardly in any of the more literate newsgroups. Let's see, off the top of
I said "some of the more literate newsgroups." not all of them.
>my head, here are five very literate and educated newsgroups that LOVE to use
>smilies:
>
>comp.lang.java
>comp.lang.javascript
>comp.authoring.www.infosystems.html
Hmm, those sound like "propellerhead" geekspeak newsgroups to me. Not
necessarily literate in the broader sense.
>alt.folklore.gemstones
A hobby group. Can't accept that.
>alt.folklore.aromatherapy
If this is what it sounds like, I'd hardly expect to go looking for
the intelligentsia there.
I'm using "literate" in the broader sense here; someone with a
broadbased knowledge and/or education in more than one discipline, not
in the sense of somebody who knows how to read and write, or somebody
who knows all the GeekSpeak buzzwords.
--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
http://www.cyberhighway.net/~glenq/
Glen Quarnstrom
lonni...@webtv.net (Alice Lacour) wrote:
>I am sick of computer Elitests. And then we usually find out their jobs
>paid for their toy. And 90 per cent of the computer users I know have a
>toy, Games, etc.
I am not a computer elitist. I paid for my own computer, and I don't
even have a job, since I'm retired and on a fixed income.
>easy to use, and not obsolete before its paid for.It has been a real
>blessing to many seniors who are not computer literate,but now use the
I'm a senior, and not particularly computer literate.
>internet.People whose jobs didnt need computer literacy,and then some of
>us just dont have 1500 to 1800 up to get and maintain a computer,have
>other priorities.
You can buy an excellent, full featured computer with monitor, modem,
and printer for under $1000. If you buy used, you can do it for not
all that much more than WebTV costs you.
>Why dont all computer snobs just make a group for them sleves and send
>miles of worthless guotes, and previous letters to each other.It seems
You just don't get it, do you? Your post is an excellent example of
why WebTVers and AOLusers get ridiculed.
>to me if any one has an IQ they can tell from a heading what is being
>answered.I dont need to read the same long post in every reply.
>This WEBTV computer bashing gets very old.and well tells me guite a bit
>about some of the elitests
Your post says a lot about you, too, and I don't think the message
it's sending is quite what you'd like it to be.
--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
http://www.cyberhighway.net/~glenq/
Glen Quarnstrom
sb...@webtv.net (Stacy Pleasant) wrote:
>I have a computer and Webtv, so what does that make me?
Judging from this one brief example, I'd say it makes you plonkbait.
--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
http://www.cyberhighway.net/~glenq/
Jay langford
Rick say's; 'Yes,three. Thanks,Rick!
Jay
Fearless Angel
gl...@NOSPAMcyberhighway.net (Glen Quarnstrom), who still remains the
founding father of Usenet netiquette ;) wrote:
unda...@webtv.net wrote:
>But, on the other hand, you also have the
>right to say whatever you wish to any
>individual who does not use text quoting
>capability, just as I have the right to let you
>know that I think that it is unfair of you to
>look down on someone who does not follow
>proper netiquette when we are all guilty of
>engaging in improper netiquette in one form
>or another.
>We all make mistakes. That's not the same
>thing as deliberately refusing to follow
>conventions that make it easier to read
>hundreds of messages each day.
Glen, I am not talking about making honest mistakes such as
typographical errors. When I say that we are all guilty of improper
posting netiquette, I am talking about intentional actions. For
instance: when you responded to drmj's posting about Dolly Parton's
*breasts,* which has absolutely nothing to do with country music, you
made the choice to not follow protocol by going off-topic. It was a
deliberate and intentional act on your part. Should we ostracize or
snub you for not staying on-topic? For not following proper protocol?
Should we chase you around the newsgroup and make remarks about you not
staying on-topic? Heck, no! :)
>I certainly don't look down on on someone for
>what they say, and you have expressed
>your opinion in a cogent, intelligent, well-
>formatted manner. The fact that
>you're wrong...
Although I am fully cognizant of the fact that text quoting is a matter
of Usenet convention as well as necessary for being able to read and
respond to what posters write, it does not mean that I am going to snub
or ostracize a person who does not follow this protocol...engage in
using text quoting capability. You do what you feel is right and I will
do what I feel is right. To reiterate: I will not snub or ostracize
any individual who chooses not to use text quoting capability. PERIOD.
Linda F. Cauthen
Stacy Pleasant wrote:
>
> I have a computer and Webtv, so what does that make me?
Maxed out on your credit cards?
Linda C.
Linda F. Cauthen
Alice Lacour wrote:
>
> To Linda KISS MY (.)
Oooh - got your panties in a bunch, eh?
> all your posts are in my skip file
Great. Maybe that will cut down on the number of your inane posts we
have to wade through.
Linda C. (Laughing at this petulant Webbie)
Fearless Angel
mave...@lakesoreconn.com (Rick Stricker) wrote:
>If your posts are being ignored and you know
>it, then your typing would be in vain. In your
>case that'd be a sad waste of time.
>I enjoy your posts, but you missed the boat
>on this one. Why on earth would anyone
>post a message, knowing that nobody is
>reading their posts, and nobody cares?
First of all, I enjoy reading your posts, too. Do I still have time to
catch the next boat? ;)
Seriously, I certainly can't force anyone to read my postings, let alone
respond to them. If I were to choose to not use text quoting capability
and someone refused to respond because I did not use text quoting, I
wouldn't lose any sleep over it or be overly concerned about it. I
would still enjoy responding to the initial header posting even if I
didn't receive any feedback. I guess I'd just have to debate an issue
with myself..... I agree with you Fearless; I don't agree with you
Fearless....." :)
Glen Quarnstrom
marc...@seesig.pobox.com (Lianne McNeil) wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 04:41:20 GMT, gl...@NOSPAMcyberhighway.net (Glen
>Quarnstrom) wrote:
>
>>It's hardly on only afu. And it's hardly only on UseNet. Using
>>smilies is merely a crutch for poor writing.
>
>It is the responsibility of the communicator to make their
>communication as clear as possible. It is sometimes impossible to
>convey with only text, what one usually conveys with words,
>inflection, tone, facial expression and body language.
This is true.
>So if a smilie
>is needed to communicate most accurately, it should be used.
As I have mentioned before, use of smilies almost never makes any
significant difference in how a post is interpreted. English is a
remarkably eloquent, versatile, and expressive language. I have a lot
of admiration and respect for those who have learned to use it
effectively. The best writers I've observed almost never use
emoticons, and those who do seem to do it more out of habit than
necessity.
>Smilies are no more a crutch than punctuation is.
Sorry, wrong. Punctuation is essential for readability and clarity.
Smilies are not.
>Since words can be interpreted so many different ways, what may seem
>"obvious" to you, may in fact be meant differently or even, the
>opposite, from the way you interpreted it. You don't have to use
With or without emoticons, yes.
>emoticons, but that doesn't make it wrong for others to use them.
>(And I am not surprised that you frequently seem to be misunderstood,
>here on rmcw.)
I find that I'm very seldom misunderstood here, and when I am, it has
nothing to do with my lack of emoticon abuse.
--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
http://www.cyberhighway.net/~glenq/
Glen Quarnstrom
"Rick Stricker" <mave...@lakeshoreconn.com> wrote:
>I was going to post my two cents worth on this, but FA beat me to it.
[who then proceeds to add his "two cents worth" anyway]
>Again, we have someone trying to demonstrate their alleged
>"sophistication" by denigrating others. Emoticons are part of today's
>online culture, and when used judiciously, they're only frowned upon
>by the REALLY anal-retentive.
>
>;->
You illustrate my point eloquently, sir. You just did exactly what
you decry, by denigrating those who disagree with you by calling them
"REALLY anal-rententive." Then you add what I assume to be some form
of smiley (there are literally hundreds of these, and I don't think we
should be expected to keep track of what they all mean), and expect us
to think you make a joke.
QED.
--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
http://www.cyberhighway.net/~glenq/
DONDI3
In article <34f7106f...@news.hevanet.com>, marc...@seesig.pobox.com
(Lianne McNeil) writes:
>
>It is the responsibility of the communicator to make their
>communication as clear as possible. It is sometimes impossible to
>convey with only text, what one usually conveys with words,
>inflection, tone, facial expression and body language. So if a smilie
>is needed to communicate most accurately, it should be used.
>
>Smilies are no more a crutch than punctuation is.
>
>Since words can be interpreted so many different ways, what may seem
>"obvious" to you, may in fact be meant differently or even, the
>opposite, from the way you interpreted it. You don't have to use
>emoticons, but that doesn't make it wrong for others to use them.
>(And I am not surprised that you frequently seem to be misunderstood,
>here on rmcw.)
>
>Lianne
>
>
Well, said, Lianne...and very true. I get a chuckle over how folks grasp for
way to bolster their superiority hunger. Whining over the use of emoticons is
probably one of the silliest complaints I've seen recently...but if it props an
otherwise sagging ego (albeit making the author look snooty or elitist) so be
it. Glen's postings while occasionally humorous & sometimes informative carry
a price with them. You either put up with the snobbish attitude or you hit the
ol' spacebar. Even us aolers can handle that on a good day...heh. Oops,
probably get a shot on that one, too.
Dondi3
Dondi enterprises
Buy, Sell, Trade, & Appraise. Rare coins & precious metals.
Established 1980.
Next show: Racine, WI Sunday, 3/1/98. Stop by & say "hello".
DONDI3
In article <6d73d8$q81$1...@newsd-141.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, unda...@webtv.net
(Fearless Angel) writes:
>
>If you want to "look down" on a person who does not use text quoting or
>ignore their postings, you have that right. However, I do not share the
>same view. In other words, I am not going to snub, ostracize or ignore
>an individual who does not use text quoting.
>
>Fearless Angel
Also, well said. However, if it becomes a real burden, I tend to skip over
them, too.
Glen, for all his snobbery, has a valid point about quoting. It *is* annoying
when you can't follow a thread, but the space bar is right there under my
thumb, so I don't let it ruin my day...I just find something else to read...
DONDI3
In article <351045f8...@news.cyberhighway.net>,
gl...@NOSPAMcyberhighway.net (Glen Quarnstrom) writes:
>Would you snub or ostracize somebody who urinated on the floor in a
>public restaurant? After all, it's just a small violation of
>etiquette.
Nonsense. Its a clear violation of health codes, moral codes, not to mention
most municipalities indecent exposure laws. Hardly comparable to what we're
talking about here.
Did you ever take any kind of logic course?
DONDI3
In article <3511465d...@news.cyberhighway.net>,
gl...@NOSPAMcyberhighway.net (Glen Quarnstrom) writes:
> When you go to a nice place
>for dinner, do you tolerate a sloppy waiter, rude staff, and a cook
>that just slaps stuff together in a haphazard way because he's to
>tired or lazy that day to do it properly? Would you go back there to
>eat a second time?
Nope.
On the other hand, you're not paying me $50 to whip up a filet, either. Send
me some money. When you start paying me, I'll try to write any way you
dictate. 'Til then, you get what I feel like giving. ;-)))
Dondi3
(Eliminate emoticons thru higher gratuities!!!)
Troll H7
In article <6d7bb9$qhv$1...@newsd-141.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, lonni...@webtv.net
(Alice Lacour) writes:
>To Linda KISS MY (.)
Kiss your period? Man I'm glad you used that emoticon to make your point more
clear. You made yourself look like the ass you want Linda to kiss.
Computer literate, but no computer snob....
--Sherry
"We've got two lives, the one we're given
and the other one we make." --MCC
drmjo...@webtv.net
: -)
drmj
Alice Lacour
Look in the mirror when you say that'!!
and read some of your bragging big shot posts. Linda look in the mirror
My "under construction" homepage <g> :
http://www.geocities.com/broadway/4707/
drmjo...@webtv.net
: - )
drmj
drmjo...@webtv.net
: - )
drmj
Stacy Pleasant
LOL; people, I bought my computer two years ago for $700 (as you can see
all it was probably good for was the internet) and webtv is relatively
inexpensive.
Fearless Angel
lie...@webtv.net
Last December I put my two cents in and defended a "lady" in this group
against drmj and a person who used the name Surge. Since that time I've
changed a couple of my opinions. I still believe this "lady" is one of
the most knowledgeable in the field of country music, and I still don't
believe she should have been called the derogatory names that were used,
but I now believe she's quite full of herself. Anyone who doesn't come
up to her high standards is treated with quite a bit of disrespect. The
way things stand today, I'd much rather read a post from drmj than
either Linda C. or Glen Q.