Speed reading ssbb
Stephen Harris
group under control. Obviously don't read ViF nor any followups to
her.
BUT... also don't read articles which haven't been editted! If I don't
see any new content in the first two screens (say around 30ish lines of
text) then I'll just skip to the end. If people are too lazy to edit
their messages to be readable then sod 'em; can't be worth reading.
--
rgds, Stephen "Pleasure, little treasure"
An Englishman in New York, and loving slave to his Mistress, Tori.
BDSM thoughts, writings, poems and stuff: http://bdsm.spuddy.org/
Newsgroup charter, FAQs etc at http://bdsm.spuddy.org/newsgroups/
Lynn
Stephen Harris wrote:
> Well, I've worked out how to keep the number of unread messages in this
> group under control. Obviously don't read ViF nor any followups to
> her.
>
> BUT... also don't read articles which haven't been editted! If I don't
> see any new content in the first two screens (say around 30ish lines of
> text) then I'll just skip to the end. If people are too lazy to edit
> their messages to be readable then sod 'em; can't be worth reading.
You're more patient than I am. 30 lines is a lot more than I skip.
Though I do scroll down to see if there's anything new--I just don't
read the quote. And, of course, there are certain posters who I'll
read almost automatically--welcome back, LadyGold!
Lynn
Subdued
>" Well, I've worked out how to keep the number of unread messages in this
> group under control. Obviously don't read ViF nor any followups to
> her."
Couldn't agree more. Especially on the subject of "ViF"! Why is she here
posting mostly irrelevant topics? We all I guess do that at times but day in
and day out nothing but babbling on and on. At least if it were
understandable or interesting. I certainly wish I had as much time on my
hands as she seems to have. No disrespect here to her but she needs to "get
with the program". Not the least bit interested in all the philisophical
bullshit.
Dave
Brian Downstairs
first five lines, then the whole thread is skipped. She does have this habit
of adjusting the sub line and that does get a bit tiresome. Maybe I'm just a
patient type by nature.
I top post when I don't see the need to quote and do edit when I think each
point deserves a response, but its harder for me to scroll down, so hate
long quotes with just, a three line comment at the bottom!
Brian
--
switc...@blueyonder.co.uk
Brian's private email.
Only my Eyes are blind...
Bring on the spam!
"Lynn" <socke...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1158600310....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Lynn
Subdued wrote:
>
> Couldn't agree more. Especially on the subject of "ViF"! Why is she here
> posting mostly irrelevant topics?
I don't think she understands that we actually do the things we talk
about here, you know, like in the flesh. I think a great deal of her
life happens in her head, and that she thinks that it is the same for
others, so that thoughts = life. Thus her figurative being bound,
flogged, hit, whipped, etc. It's not off-topic *to* *her*.
> We all I guess do that at times
Speaking as the Queen of Flirt, I resemble that remark!
but day in
> and day out nothing but babbling on and on. At least if it were
> understandable or interesting. I certainly wish I had as much time on my
> hands as she seems to have. No disrespect here to her but she needs to "get
> with the program". Not the least bit interested in all the philisophical
> bullshit.
Hasn't really been a lot of really philosophical bullshit--more weird
church-insider-political bullshit. I mean, I'll discuss, say the
trinity, which I've never really understood the differences between
Xtian groups on. But whether minister X says that women should wear
skirts while priest Y says they may wear trousers interests me not at
all.
Lynn
SuzanneM
: I don't think she understands that we actually do the things we talk
: about here, you know, like in the flesh.
I wonder how many there are like her, nowadays. I used to think
that everybody here and on irc and anywhere on the net, were
talking about things they actually do. That doesn't seem to be a
valid assumption any more.
dag
Suzanne
--
toy at the end of a chain -- www.xs4all.nl/~tateoac
Dragonfly
"Brian Downstairs" <switc...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:XbCPg.21103$r61....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> With VIF you can sometimes find interesting topics, but if its not in the
> first five lines, then the whole thread is skipped. She does have this
> habit of adjusting the sub line and that does get a bit tiresome. Maybe
> I'm just a patient type by nature.
>
> I top post when I don't see the need to quote and do edit when I think
> each point deserves a response, but its harder for me to scroll down, so
> hate long quotes with just, a three line comment at the bottom!
>
> Brian
I`ve always wondered about that, top-posting when there is no direct need to
quote but a desire to leave some reference to the msg being replied to...
What I don`t know is actual usenet policy on it and have gotten different
answers depending on who I ask.
So, what is the accepted format, insofar as not wanting to specifically
quote anything? In such a case, is it acceptable to top-post? I`ve mostly
heard that top-posting is one of those "evil" things you aren`t supposed to
do on newsgroups. But I agree that it is much easier to top-post when
you`re only adding a few lines of text and not directly quoting anything,
seems better than "bottom-posting" and having to scroll all the way down, or
not quoting any of the previous message at all.
Dragonfly - not old enough to not be new to newsgroups :D
Dragonfly
"SuzanneM" <tat...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:450f10c5$0$4530$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> Lynn <socke...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> : I don't think she understands that we actually do the things we talk
> : about here, you know, like in the flesh.
>
> I wonder how many there are like her, nowadays. I used to think
> that everybody here and on irc and anywhere on the net, were
> talking about things they actually do. That doesn't seem to be a
> valid assumption any more.
>
> dag
> Suzanne
>
I do, now, but say, 5 years ago when I first started going to online groups,
I didn`t. 5 years ago I wasn`t 18 yet, and like hell I`d trust my sanity to
a kid my age!
Then again, I doubt that those who do the "online/in your head" type and
don`t actually do real-life stuff (whether one counts online as real life or
not isn`t something I`ll go anywhere near!) have any similar excuse, or
reasoning. I`ve seen similar with almost every "community" I participate in
online. Even hiking and backpacking groups, gah! How one can just TALK
about forests and ocean and trails and camping and yet not actually go do
it, is totally beyond me. There`s people who will live online no matter
what their interests are, but its getting easier for me at least to
differentiate between those who have a real life and those who live solely
in their heads and thus end up with skewed perceptions of reality.
Dragonfly -too much in love with the real world to be online that much!
David Weinshenker
> I`ve always wondered about that, top-posting when there is no direct need to
> quote but a desire to leave some reference to the msg being replied to...
> What I don`t know is actual usenet policy on it and have gotten different
> answers depending on who I ask.
First, there isn't really "actual usenet policy" for anything like
that one way or the other... there are various habits, conventions,
and preferences (which vary between posters to different newsgroups)...
usually I snip and bottom-post; occasionally I top-post when I want
to comment on a prior message as a whole, rather than using a specific
line in it as a context for a conversational reply.
-dave w
Tim McDaniel
Dragonfly <mars_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>So, what is the accepted format, insofar as not wanting to specifically
>quote anything?
If what you're writing stands on its own, why keep ANY quoted text?
If you need some general background, you can summarize, like "Foo
wrote about how necessary safewords are to him. As for me, ...".
I can't speak for others, but I rarely "cherry-pick" newsgroups that
I'm really interested in. In most cases, I can remember the general
themes expressed in a thread with a small reminder.
I believe that most newsreader programs allow going to the parent
article, so if someone wants to refresh their memory of exactly what
Foo wrote, they usually can.
In other words, I strongly request that people please trim quoted text
to the minimum needed to establish context. If you don't need some of
it for any reason, please don't quote it. If you DO need some of it
as context, please trim to just the points you're replying to.
>But I agree that it is much easier to top-post when you`re only
>adding a few lines of text and not directly quoting anything, seems
>better than "bottom-posting" and having to scroll all the way down
How am I supposed to know that you're top-posting? That is, how can I
know that your only comments are at the top? The only way is if I
"scroll all the way down", so you're not saving any effort for someone
who wants to read your whole article.
And "easier" for whom? Words are written once and read by many
people, so if an author can express themselves well, they save their
readers a lot of time in aggregate. I think it's selfish for an
author to consider only their convenience and not their audience's.
--
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tm...@panix.com
David Weinshenker
> She does have this habit
> of adjusting the sub line
> and that does get a bit tiresome.
I think it's her way of "claiming territory",
like that makes it "her topic" or something.
-dave w
Dragonfly
"Tim McDaniel" <tm...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:eenli6$8d6$1...@tmcd.austin.tx.us...
> In article <4n8uinF...@individual.net>,
> Dragonfly <mars_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>So, what is the accepted format, insofar as not wanting to specifically
>>quote anything?
>
> If what you're writing stands on its own, why keep ANY quoted text?
> If you need some general background, you can summarize, like "Foo
> wrote about how necessary safewords are to him. As for me, ...".
That`s a good point, and the point about most newsreaders keeping parent
articles as well.
> I can't speak for others, but I rarely "cherry-pick" newsgroups that
> I'm really interested in. In most cases, I can remember the general
> themes expressed in a thread with a small reminder.
Ah. In my case, I have the memory of a 100-year old (meaning, my short and
long term memory both suffer greatly from gigantic holes) so I wouldn`t
remember the general ideas expressed in a thread, and in most cases, new
msgs from a thread I`m reading generally means I`ll go back and skim through
the previous posts before reading the new one to make sure I do know what`s
being talked about (because chances are I won`t remember at all). However,
it is hard to remember that most people`s memories are FAR superior to my
own, and thus would not likely need as much quoted text.
> How am I supposed to know that you're top-posting? That is, how can I
> know that your only comments are at the top? The only way is if I
> "scroll all the way down", so you're not saving any effort for someone
> who wants to read your whole article.
Good point.
> And "easier" for whom? Words are written once and read by many
> people, so if an author can express themselves well, they save their
> readers a lot of time in aggregate. I think it's selfish for an
> author to consider only their convenience and not their audience's.
In this case, I meant easier for the person reading my replies, not easier
for me. It is no more difficult to top-post than it is to bottom-post, and
slightly more time-consuming to trim posts (on the order of maybe a handful
of seconds *grins*), so I can do whatever is going to be more happily
readable to the folks who read my posts. Figuring out what that form is
though, has not been the easiest of things.
Dragonfly
Dragonfly
"David Weinshenker" <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:450F526C...@earthlink.net...
> Dragonfly wrote:
>> I`ve always wondered about that, top-posting when there is no direct need
>> to
>> quote but a desire to leave some reference to the msg being replied to...
>> What I don`t know is actual usenet policy on it and have gotten different
>> answers depending on who I ask.
>
> First, there isn't really "actual usenet policy" for anything like
> that one way or the other... there are various habits, conventions,
> and preferences (which vary between posters to different newsgroups)...
That`s more or less what I meant by policy, just the conventions and
preferences of *this* particular newsgroup.
> usually I snip and bottom-post; occasionally I top-post when I want
> to comment on a prior message as a whole, rather than using a specific
> line in it as a context for a conversational reply.
I seem to end up top-posting comments about the post as a whole, and then
inserting specific replies to specific points within the post itself, which
seems to be the most common way of replying here. But it was for when I
only have the general "whole post" commentary and not a line-by-line reply
that was making me wonder whether to top-post, bottom-post, or remove the
entire post I am replying to and hope to the superiour memory of others and
the archiving of posts for reference.
Dragonfly
David Weinshenker
> I seem to end up top-posting comments about the post as a whole, and then
> inserting specific replies to specific points within the post itself, which
> seems to be the most common way of replying here. But it was for when I
> only have the general "whole post" commentary and not a line-by-line reply
> that was making me wonder whether to top-post, bottom-post, or remove the
> entire post I am replying to and hope to the superiour memory of others and
> the archiving of posts for reference.
In that case a commonly approved practice is to leave in a little bit of
context so people can see what you're replying to... the ability of readers
to see which post was the prior one in the thread can vary with different
viewing software and what the particular view settings are.
A format I might use in such cases might look something like:
-------------------------------
Joe said:
> It was a dark and stormy... [snip]
And then I responded like this (etc.)
-------------------------------
where the [snip] indicates that I omit a section of the prior quoted material.
-dave w
Dragonfly
> In that case a commonly approved practice is to leave in a little bit of
> context so people can see what you're replying to... the ability of
> readers
> to see which post was the prior one in the thread can vary with different
> viewing software and what the particular view settings are.
>
> -dave w
That sounds like the most compact and yet clear way of doing things. Its
how we asked people to do things on the rather large email list I helped
start, after it became big enough to need such regulations.
Dragonfly
Tim McDaniel
Dragonfly <mars_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>... and the point about most newsreaders keeping parent articles as
>well [so people can review previous articles for context]
Someone else pointed out that that's not necessarily so. So keeping
some context, be it a quotation, a summary, interpolated context as
above, or whatever, is better.
>"Tim McDaniel" <tm...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:eenli6$8d6$1...@tmcd.austin.tx.us...
>> And "easier" for whom? Words are written once and read by many
>> people, so if an author can express themselves well, they save their
>> readers a lot of time in aggregate.
>
>In this case, I meant easier for the person reading my replies, not
>easier for me. ...
>Figuring out what that [best] form is though, has not been the
>easiest of things.
Unneeded quotations are text to skim over or wade thru, so it's
clutter that's getting in the way of the message. It also takes extra
download time for those of us still using dialup, and extra disk.
Bottom-posting means that the context is read first, before the reply
that's based on the context. That makes sense to the reader.
If you indeed need the context to understand the reply, then
top-posting means reading the reply (which then doesn't make sense),
reading the quotations below (to get the context), and then re-reading
the reply.
Those were the conventions for many years on Usenet, before badly-
written Usenet software was distributed, and those were the functional
reasons for those conventions. (And those are the centuries-old
real-world conventions too: when replying to literary criticism, say,
you don't write three lines of text and then quote the entire essay
you're rebutting, and that's not just due to printing costs!)
You might Google or Google Groups for "netiquette" or "Usenet
etiquette": the FAQs may still be around, and cover a lot of topics
and applied wisdom.
When I see
>>>>>>
it looks like a "you said / but you said" argument, and I rarely find
it worth reading.
I've found a strong positive correlation between
- general cluefulness
- well-written, easy to read, and informative articles
- people who follow standard English spelling, grammar, and
punctuation practices
- people who trim quotations to the minimum necessary and who
bottom-post
David Weinshenker
And it's also generally a good practice on usenet newsgroups, for
similar reasons.
-dave w
Dragonfly
> I've found a strong positive correlation between
> - general cluefulness
> - well-written, easy to read, and informative articles
> - people who follow standard English spelling, grammar, and
> punctuation practices
> - people who trim quotations to the minimum necessary and who
> bottom-post
or people who at least care enough to ask? :)
I`ll google it tomorrow, and see what I find, thanks for the suggestion.
Dragonfly
Troia
Especially given that there are those of us who don't read threaded but
rather date-sorted, for which preference there are varying reasons.
-- Troia
Troia
has been the overall convention for a long time. Also the amount of
context to include varies from post-to-post. For example, one Netscape
group used to want the full conversation on the last post, so that
anyone could read and understand the whole thing from a single post at
the end of the thread. Others prefer minimal posting.
I vastly dislike context-less posts as I read in date order and it takes
time (albeit only seconds) to re-thread to get the context from prior
posts, and sometimes takes working my way up "off-screen" as it were, as
a post can be a response to one 20 up from its threaded position
(depending on the extent of replies.)
The type of posting you describe is generally called "interspersed" and
is more appropriate when there are varied topics through the post, and
in some other cases where it "feels right". I do it sometimes, but most
often I bottom-post (top-quote).
There is a bad joke about this very controversial topic, something like
this (from memory):
===========================================
Top posting.
What is the most annoying newbie practice on Usenet?
===========================================
I do tend to *generally* but not rigidly agree; conversation flows
naturally top-to-bottom for everyone except, apparently, Bill Gate's
designers.
Also, the convention is usually reversed in email, where there are less
topics, players, and sub-threads to deal with.
-- Troia
Tim McDaniel
- Dennis Brennan
a nice day.
follow. Hope this helps, have
response much harder to
since it makes the logic in your
asked if you would stop top-posting
Aaron. People have repeatedly
Good grief,
In article <450ffe18$0$97226$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>,
Troia <troia....@gmail.removethis.com> wrote:
>A: Top posting.
>
>Q: What is the most annoying newbie practice on Usenet?
>Also, the convention is usually reversed in email, where there are
>less topics, players, and sub-threads to deal with.
For most of the mailing lists I'm on, bottom-posting is the norm.
In a business context, it can be useful to keep an untrimmed copy of
the exchange so far at the bottom (a bottom-posting cascade), in case
an e-mail exchange gets forwarded to a new person and they have to get
up to speed. Even there, though they have to go to the end, scroll up
to the start of the first message, scroll down to read it, scroll back
up to the start of the second message, ...
alcibiades
> Dragonfly wrote:
<snip>
> > Then again, I doubt that those who do the "online/in your head" type and
> > don`t actually do real-life stuff (whether one counts online as real life or
> > not isn`t something I`ll go anywhere near!) have any similar excuse, or
> > reasoning. I`ve seen similar with almost every "community" I participate in
> > online. Even hiking and backpacking groups, gah! How one can just TALK
> > about forests and ocean and trails and camping and yet not actually go do
> > it, is totally beyond me. There`s people who will live online no matter
> > what their interests are, but its getting easier for me at least to
> > differentiate between those who have a real life and those who live solely
> > in their heads and thus end up with skewed perceptions of reality.
> >
> > Dragonfly -too much in love with the real world to be online that much!
Venus in Furs wrote:
> Ah such pontifical judgment from such a mature woman. Wow. She really
> knows so much about real life: marriage, child rearing, work, and far
> darker things. I am just so impressed. I just so want to emulate
> Dragonfly. And I just have so much time to go to parties and munches
> and scenes and the like. Why I just dissolved my 6 year vanilla
> marriage. I am all ready for play now. Hey boys, come and get me. Don't
> you like my bait? Aren't I so alluring. Ah yes, I want to hold up to
> Dragonfly's standard. It is just so commendable!
> Regards,
> Venus in Furs
Venus, Dragonfly was obviously not talking about you - she was talking
about the general phenomenon where people choose to write about
activities on the Internet rather than actually participating in those
activities. Her specific referent is people who write about hiking
rather than actually going hiking. How you transmute this into a
statement about you, and particularly how you think it is appropriate
to respond with a mean ad hominem (yes, I put that in for you because I
know you like the phrase) attack on Dragonfly, boggles the mind.
Not that it was relevant to the discussion at hand, but Dragonfly's
other posts here indicate that she has gone through plenty of the "far
darker things" that you so dramatically refer to. The only difference
is that she, like the rest of us, tries to use her experiences to grow
from, not as excuses for bad, rude behavior.
alcibiades
jacqui{JB}
news:4n9mnfF...@individual.net...
> I`ll google it tomorrow, and see what I find, thanks
> for the suggestion.
This is my favorite reference on the subject, which I think I picked up from
someone here:
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
-j
SuzanneM
: online. Even hiking and backpacking groups, gah! How one can just TALK
: about forests and ocean and trails and camping and yet not actually go do
: it, is totally beyond me.
True.
But if you have the "real thing" experience, the headspace
experience can give you the same sensations as the real thing. I
like to snowboard, and when I concentrate on being on my
snowboard, I can generate almost the same feeling of flying as
when I actually go through powder.
Same in pain play. After you have a lot of experience in heavy
pain play, you can like evoke the endorphins in your body and do
heavy pain play in your head without the bruises and wounds.
But, as you say, you need the real thing to get started. Without
actual play you don't know a thing.
Tim McDaniel
SuzanneM <tat...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>But if you have the "real thing" experience, the headspace experience
>can give you the same sensations as the real thing.
Hmmm. I have to disagree: if *you* have the "real thing" experience,
the headspace experience can give *you* the same sensations as the
real thing. I wouldn't say that's so for me, because my memory and
imagination aren't that vivid.
Mad Jesuit
"Stephen Harris" <bd...@spuddy.org> wrote in message
news:q6kmee...@spuddy.org...
> Well, I've worked out how to keep the number of unread messages in this
> group under control. Obviously don't read ViF nor any followups to
> her.
>
Wow. I've already kill-filed ViF.
---TMJ
SuzanneM
: Hmmm. I have to disagree: if *you* have the "real thing" experience,
: the headspace experience can give *you* the same sensations as the
: real thing. I wouldn't say that's so for me, because my memory and
: imagination aren't that vivid.
Maybe a language problem? "you" as in "someone in general", not as
in "you in particular". I think you can use the word "you" in that
way, but I have to agree that it may be less common in English
than in Dutch, where nobody would interpret the "you" part as "you
in particular".
Tim McDaniel
SuzanneM <tat...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>: Hmmm. I have to disagree: if *you* have the "real thing"
>: experience, the headspace experience can give *you* the same
>: sensations as the real thing. I wouldn't say that's so for me,
>: because my memory and imagination aren't that vivid.
>
>Maybe a language problem? "you" as in "someone in general", not as
>in "you in particular".
English has the same concept of "you" as "any random person",
replacing the now almost archaic pronoun "one". "You can't fight City
Hall" is the first example I just ran across.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you> is an article on it but
with much more detail about "one" than "you".
My point was that you wrote
>>>But if you have the "real thing" experience, the headspace
>>>experience can give you the same sensations as the real thing.
I was indeed interpreting "you" as "people in general". I was
objecting to that generality, that you seemed to be saying that
everyone or almost everyone could do that. I can't, and I don't know
the proportions of people who can.
David Weinshenker
>
> Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> : Hmmm. I have to disagree: if *you* have the "real thing" experience,
> : the headspace experience can give *you* the same sensations as the
> : real thing. I wouldn't say that's so for me, because my memory and
> : imagination aren't that vivid.
>
> Maybe a language problem? "you" as in "someone in general", not as
> in "you in particular". I think you can use the word "you" in that
> way, but I have to agree that it may be less common in English
> than in Dutch, where nobody would interpret the "you" part as "you
> in particular".
That's actually a common usage in English also, but it does
seem to cause confusion sometimes.
-dave w
SuzanneM
: I was indeed interpreting "you" as "people in general". I was
: objecting to that generality, that you seemed to be saying that
: everyone or almost everyone could do that. I can't, and I don't know
: the proportions of people who can.
Redefine "you" as "some people". I know it's true for some people.
SuzanneM
: That's actually a common usage in English also, but it does
: seem to cause confusion sometimes.
I had noticed that before. Still, "je" in Dutch and "you" in
English do not mean exactly the same thing. There's subtle
differences that are hard to grasp. I'm not referring to the fact
that "you" in English can mean "u" (do not pronounce "you",
pronounce as, uhm, you probably can't. Try say "i" and "o" at
the same time).