Dropping things on altar breaks atheist conduct?
Asmodeus
mention it. Does anyone know?
--A
Sam Dennis
> Does dropping things on altar break atheist conduct?
Yes.
> Does anyone know?
Yes.
--
++acr@,ka"
Asmodeus
news:yrjhegm...@despammed.com...
> In wizard mode you can even wish for the altar..
I tried wizard mode, but I never figured out how you wish for things. I
broke my way to the minetown altar and tested it there...only died 34 times
on the way :)
So how do you wish for things in wizard mode?
Boudewijn Waijers
game by issuing the command "nethack -uwizard -D" on a PC, if I recall
correctly). If you are on a unix system, you need game administrator rights,
usually. Just typing X while you're playing a normal game will put you in
discovery mode, not wizard mode.
When you are in wizard mode, you will see an extra option at the end of the
"?" menu, offering wizard mode specific help.
By the way, to wish for something is just ^W (you may wish for dungeon
features as well). And there's no need to walk anywhere; ^O will show you the
location of special levels; ^T and ^V will teleport or levelport you anywhere.
--
Boudewijn Waijers -- www.win.tue.nl/~kroisos
PP++++: My name is Efembe.
"Asmodeus" <pres...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
news:3d89c6c8$1...@news.estpak.ee...
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins
Boudewijn Waijers <kro...@win.tue.nl> wrote:
>First, make sure you are in wizard mode, not in discovery mode (you enter the
>game by issuing the command "nethack -uwizard -D" on a PC, if I recall
>correctly). If you are on a unix system, you need game administrator rights,
>usually. Just typing X while you're playing a normal game will put you in
>discovery mode, not wizard mode.
I think the default is also to require that you be user wizard, as well
. . .
hawk
--
Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign
doc...@psu.edu Smeal 178 (814) 375-4700 \ / against HTML mail
These opinions will not be those of X and postings.
Penn State until it pays my retainer. / \
Sam Dennis
Argh! Top-posting!!!!!!!!!
> When you are in wizard mode, you will see an extra option at the end of the
> "?" menu, offering wizard mode specific help.
>
> And there's no need to walk anywhere; ^O will show you the location of
> special levels; ^T and ^V will teleport or levelport you anywhere.
Although, irritatingly, you still need to walk to get to parallel branches.
(Unless I've missed something? I never systematically inspected the wizard-
mode facilities, so there might be a way (other than quest artifacts) to do
this.)
--
++acr@,ka"
Dylan O'Donnell
> Boudewijn Waijers wrote:
>
> Argh! Top-posting!!!!!!!!!
>
> > When you are in wizard mode, you will see an extra option at the end of the
> > "?" menu, offering wizard mode specific help.
> >
> > And there's no need to walk anywhere; ^O will show you the location of
> > special levels; ^T and ^V will teleport or levelport you anywhere.
>
> Although, irritatingly, you still need to walk to get to parallel branches.
You can do pretty much everything with ^O, ^V, ^F, and ^T in
combination with the cursor-moving-to-symbol shortcuts (well, you'll
need to walk one step into portals, since you can't teleport onto
traps). No-teleport areas in levels like the Castle are more of a
pain. (Blessed-genociding '*' is probably a good idea if you don't
need the monsters around for your test.)
--
: Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ :
: "Hi! I'm Prozac the Bear!" :
: -- Prozac the Bear, "Triangle and Robert" :
Sam Dennis
> Sam Dennis <s...@malfunction.screaming.net> writes:
>> Boudewijn Waijers wrote:
>> > ^O will show you the location of special levels; ^T and ^V will teleport
>> > or levelport you anywhere.
>>
>> Although, irritatingly, you still need to walk to get to parallel branches.
>
> You can do pretty much everything with ^O, ^V, ^F, and ^T in combination
> with the cursor-moving-to-symbol shortcuts
True, but for repetitive testing (like I did recently while unsuccessfully
trying to sort out the problem with one of the new mines' ends,) it may be
much more convenient to be able to type <Ctrl-V> minetn <Enter>. Only you
can't do that unless you're already in the mines. (Sokoban is similar.)
Hmm, let's fix that:
--- nethack-3.4.0/src/teleport.c Thu Aug 29 02:37:12 2002
+++ nethack-3.4.0+wizlevnames/src/teleport.c Thu Sep 19 20:38:24 2002
@@ -537,7 +537,20 @@
return;
else if (!strcmp(buf,"*"))
goto random_levtport;
- if ((newlev = lev_by_name(buf)) == 0) newlev = atoi(buf);
+ if ((newlev = lev_by_name(buf)) == 0) {
+#ifdef WIZARD
+ s_level *slev;
+
+ /* if you're using wizard mode, you shouldn't really need
+ * the game to interpret things like `mine town level' */
+ if (wizard && (slev = find_level(buf))) {
+ schedule_goto(&slev->dlevel, FALSE, FALSE, 0,
+ (char *)0, (char *)0);
+ return;
+ }
+#endif
+ newlev = atoi(buf);
+ }
} while (!newlev && !digit(buf[0]) &&
(buf[0] != '-' || !digit(buf[1])) &&
trycnt < 10);
Much better :)
--
++acr@,ka"
Asmodeus
news:slrnaok0s...@localhost.loopback...
> Boudewijn Waijers wrote:
>
> Argh! Top-posting!!!!!!!!!
I don't see why some people hate top-posting so much. I actually prefer to
see what the writer has to say, not go through pages of stuff what I've read
in the previous posts already. Only time I see "bottom-posting" a good thing
is that when I need to answer specific questions in another writer's post.
When speaking about the subject in general, I prefer top-posting, so _if_ I
feel like I've forgot what the thread was about I just scroll down and read
what the previous posts said.
(At work I always top-post, here not, cause I feel I'd get shot here if I do
:P )
--A
Raisse the Thaumaturge
> "Sam Dennis" <s...@malfunction.screaming.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnaok0s...@localhost.loopback...
>> Boudewijn Waijers wrote:
>>
>> Argh! Top-posting!!!!!!!!!
>
> I don't see why some people hate top-posting so much. I actually
> prefer to see what the writer has to say, not go through pages of
> stuff what I've read in the previous posts already.
That's why you snip everything except what you're specifically replying
to: to prevent people having to scroll down to see what you have to
say.
> When speaking about the subject in
> general, I prefer top-posting, so _if_ I feel like I've forgot what
> the thread was about I just scroll down and read what the previous
> posts said.
When you speak about the subject in general, it's usually better to snip
everything or almost everything and summarize the previous discussion.
If you top-post, at least in any of the newsgroups I use (that is,
r.g.r.n. is not the idiosyncratic one), people tend to think there must
be something beneath all the dreck you left in and scroll all the way
down only to find there's nothing there. In other words, you'll both
confuse and piss off people.
(sigh; why do we have to go over this again?)
Raisse, killed by a newt
--
ir...@valdyas.org (myself) http://www.valdyas.org/irina
Status of Raisse (piously neutral): Level 8 HP 63(67) AC -3, fast.
Daniel Giaimo
> "Sam Dennis" <s...@malfunction.screaming.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnaok0s...@localhost.loopback...
> > Boudewijn Waijers wrote:
> >
> > Argh! Top-posting!!!!!!!!!
>
> I don't see why some people hate top-posting so much. I actually
prefer to
> see what the writer has to say, not go through pages of stuff what
I've read
> in the previous posts already.
Two things: (1) Other people may not have read the previous posts.
(They might not even have gotten to their news server yet.) (2) Only
relevant material should be quoted, so you shouldn't have to go through
pages of stuff that you've already read.
--
Daniel Giaimo
Asmodeus
news:3139517.F...@calcifer.valdyas.org...
> be something beneath all the dreck you left in and scroll all the way
What's a dreck? (And why must there be something beneath it?)
--A
Duncan Booth
news:3d8b1...@news.estpak.ee:
> "Sam Dennis" <s...@malfunction.screaming.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnaok0s...@localhost.loopback...
>> Boudewijn Waijers wrote:
>>
>> Argh! Top-posting!!!!!!!!!
>
> I don't see why some people hate top-posting so much. I actually
> prefer to see what the writer has to say, not go through pages of
> stuff what I've read in the previous posts already.
This is a good argument for trimming the quoted text, and for using
software that scrolls directly to the unquoted text for those occasions
where someone was too lazy to trim.
> Only time I see
> "bottom-posting" a good thing is that when I need to answer specific
> questions in another writer's post. When speaking about the subject in
> general, I prefer top-posting, so _if_ I feel like I've forgot what
> the thread was about I just scroll down and read what the previous
> posts said.
You see a reason for bottom posting when you are replying to specific
points, but not if you are waxing lyrical. So what happens if you want to
make some specific points about a message which itself used top quoting?
There is no way to sensibly trim a message with mixed quoting styles.
Bottom quoting gives you the opportunity to trim the text to relevant
context (which is good whether your points are specific or general). Even
after trimming the original message is probably available for reference in
another window of your application should you need it.
I use top quoting for consistency at work, but it means that every so often
someone sends me an email containing a long discussion which has to be read
from the bottom up. This just seems totally wrong.
Anyway, in answer to your question I think the primary reason is for
consistency. The usenet rules (which evolved as best practice over time)
say to bottom quote, and if you want to be part of a community it usually
helps to conform to the community rules. The reasons the rules evolved that
way are to encourage trimming, to allow context to be included from more
than one previous message and to make it easier to see the specific points
that were being addressed.
You might like to read http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/quote.html
--
Duncan Booth dun...@rcp.co.uk
int month(char *p){return(124864/((p[0]+p[1]-p[2]&0x1f)+1)%12)["\5\x8\3"
"\6\7\xb\1\x9\xa\2\0\4"];} // Who said my code was obscure?
Boudewijn Waijers
> "Sam Dennis" <s...@malfunction.screaming.net> wrote...
> > Boudewijn Waijers wrote:
>> Argh! Top-posting!!!!!!!!!
> I don't see why some people hate top-posting so much. I actually prefer to
> see what the writer has to say, not go through pages of stuff what I've read
> in the previous posts already.
I do see why, and I usually don't top-post myself. I must have been in a
terrible hurry when I wrote the original article. Albeit a bit belated, my
sincere apologies.
I'm not saying it won't happen again; accidents like this sometimes happen.
And you having to wade through pages of stuff you've read already is not
because people bottom-post, but because people don't know how to cite properly
(cut away superfluous quotations).
Bottom-posting actually encourages quoting only what you're referring to,
since leaving too much of the previous posting behind would only distract from
your own text.
Boudewijn Waijers
> "Raisse the Thaumaturge" <rai...@valdyas.org> wrote ...
>> be something beneath all the dreck you left in and scroll all the way
> What's a dreck? (And why must there be something beneath it?)
Dreck is German for rubbish, which you might have known, being Estonian (not
that Estonian resembles German even remotely).
Virgo Pärna
>
> Dreck is German for rubbish, which you might have known, being Estonian (not
> that Estonian resembles German even remotely).
>
Why I should know what a German word means, just because I'm
Estonian? I know only few words in German.... I'd say there are more
Estonians who speak English or Russian then those who speak German.
--
Virgo Pärna
virgo...@mail.ee
Ben Hiles
I think a better way of describing it is as an English word that was
originally German.
--
Ben Hiles
Graduate Student
Dept. Of Psychology
Cornell University
Ben Hiles
>"Asmodeus" <pres...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
>news:3d8b1...@news.estpak.ee...
>prefer to
>> see what the writer has to say, not go through pages of stuff what
>I've read
>> in the previous posts already.
>
> Two things: (1) Other people may not have read the previous posts.
>(They might not even have gotten to their news server yet.) (2) Only
>relevant material should be quoted, so you shouldn't have to go through
>pages of stuff that you've already read.
(3) Other people may have read the previous posts yesterday or the day
before and they forget what the context is.
Asmodeus
news:Xns928F965743B...@127.0.0.1...
> You see a reason for bottom posting when you are replying to specific
> points, but not if you are waxing lyrical. So what happens if you want to
> make some specific points about a message which itself used top quoting?
> There is no way to sensibly trim a message with mixed quoting styles.
_Sometimes_ there is a need to quote a question or a specific phrase from
the last post, what was said by the last poster only. I don't see a reason
ever to quote things that everyone has said about the subject since 1984. If
there is someone who for some reason jumps into the discussion in the
middle, and has no clue about the thread (then why would he jump in in the
first place?) then it should be relatively simple to check the previous
posts themselves and not have the entire line of reasoning repeated in every
post.
So when you only need to quote one writer, there is no chance of mixing any
styles.
(perhaps it's just me, but when I read something, I automatically start at
the top, even when there are '>' marks in front and I know damn well that
I've already read this in the last post. It's an automatic thing, and I have
to make a conscious effort to search the for text with no '>' in front. Sure
I can do it, but I don't think it's the best way. When I read the top post,
I stop immediately when the "this and this wrote in a message" appears, the
rest of it is old stuff and I usually don't want to read it. If you're a
programmer type you see how in case of bottom-posting you need to process
many more lines ;)
--A
Asmodeus
:)
...and if it happens that I just read this and went 'huh?', then I would
just look here:
"Boudewijn Waijers" <kro...@win.tue.nl> wrote in message
news:amfacd$bg5$1...@reader1.tiscali.nl...
> And you having to wade through pages of stuff you've read already is not
> because people bottom-post, but because people don't know how to cite
properly
> (cut away superfluous quotations).
(but that's just me)
--A
Asmodeus
news:slrnaomh9j...@aglaope.psych.cornell.edu...
> I think a better way of describing it is as an English word that was
> originally German.
It is definitely not a widely-used word. I've studied/worked in the US for
six years and I have never heard (at least not while concious) this word :)
--A
David Damerell
>>points, but not if you are waxing lyrical. So what happens if you want to
>>make some specific points about a message which itself used top quoting?
>>There is no way to sensibly trim a message with mixed quoting styles.
>_Sometimes_ there is a need to quote a question or a specific phrase from
>the last post, what was said by the last poster only. I don't see a reason
>ever to quote things that everyone has said about the subject since 1984.
No-one is advocating that, as you will see if you read what you are
replying to. Sometimes there's a need to quote more than one person for a
coherent article.
>(perhaps it's just me, but when I read something, I automatically start at
>the top, even when there are '>' marks in front
You get used to it.
>rest of it is old stuff and I usually don't want to read it. If you're a
>programmer type you see how in case of bottom-posting you need to process
>many more lines ;)
Hint; some of the people here are much greater "programmer types" than
you think. Also, no-one is advocating bottom-posting, but instead
correctly interspersed postings.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Robin Johnson
> I'd prefer they cut away everything then, and just say what they have to say
> :)
Please, please do not top post, if for no other reason than that it
annoys people.
--
Robin Johnson
rj at robinjohnson dot f9 dot co dot uk
http://www.robinjohnson.f9.co.uk
Only idiots quote sig blocks.
Dayv!
[dreck]
> It is definitely not a widely-used word. I've studied/worked in the US for
> six years and I have never heard (at least not while concious) this word :)
I think it's a regional thing. My parents are from upstate New York,
and I've known the word since childhood. I've always seen it spelled
"drek," and thought it was yiddish, but it's basically the same thing,
AFAIK.
--
-Dayv!
"Chut up!"
Asmodeus
news:3d8b65f4.1479708@news-> Please, please do not top post, if for no other
reason than that it
> annoys people.
I don't, the last post was just to illustrate my point...did that really
annoy you?
--A
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins
Asmodeus <pres...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>_Sometimes_ there is a need to quote a question or a specific phrase from
>the last post, what was said by the last poster only. I don't see a reason
>ever to quote things that everyone has said about the subject since 1984.
Neither does anyone else. This is what the "trimming" part is.
>If
>there is someone who for some reason jumps into the discussion in the
>middle, and has no clue about the thread (then why would he jump in in the
>first place?) then it should be relatively simple to check the previous
>posts themselves and not have the entire line of reasoning repeated in every
>post.
No, NO, NO! That's the point. The design of usenet means that you
CANNOT expect, count, or rely on the availablity of any other post. It
is *common* and *normal* for posts to arrive out of sequence. It's less
of a problem than it used to be, but it's inherent in usenet.
>So when you only need to quote one writer, there is no chance of mixing any
>styles.
Only if you've said something so moronic or so correct that there's no
chance of anyone following up, but not quite good/bad enough that anyone
will post admiration or derision . . . And again, this overlooks the
question that there is a well established, non-debatable correct way.
>(perhaps it's just me, but when I read something, I automatically start at
>the top, even when there are '>' marks in front and I know damn well that
>I've already read this in the last post. It's an automatic thing, and I have
>to make a conscious effort to search the for text with no '>' in front.
I think the <tab> in the rn family dates to news, the only other reader
20 years ago (didn't nn use one of the others). Hit tab in a real
newsreader, and it moves to the next unquoted non-blank line.
>If you're a
>programmer type you see how in case of bottom-posting you need to process
>many more lines ;)
Are there really any compilers that process comments???
Sam Dennis
> [taken out of context from YATPD]
> Are there really any compilers that process comments???
I'd love to know how you expect a compiler to discover what _is_ a comment
without processing.
--
++acr@,ka"
Cantgetaname1234
Hey I just wanted to jump in and mention that I always top-post when I write in
other discussion groups and in my e-mail replies. This group is the only one in
which I bottom-post, and it's just so I don't offend the locals here.
-Jack
Tina Hall
> > Dreck is German for rubbish,
Untrue. It means 'dirt'. 'Rubbish' would be 'Muell'.
Tina, poisoned by a rotted kobold corpse (twice)
Grande Puffo
[ snip ]
> >If you're a
> >programmer type you see how in case of bottom-posting you need to process
> >many more lines ;)
>
> Are there really any compilers that process comments???
And lo! and behold it is written in the blessed Book written by
Syntax&Semantix:
"If something is written, it shall be parsed. If something is parsed
it may compile."
Also, the newsreaders and newsagents will process the comments.
Actually that's one of their main functions...
--
GP_Spukgestalt, human newsreader.
Oliver Beckmann
[top posting]
> Hey I just wanted to jump in and mention that I always
> top-post when I write in
> other discussion groups and in my e-mail replies. This
> group is the only one in
> which I bottom-post, and it's just so I don't offend the locals here.
If you produce TOFU[1] in a newsgroup of the
de.* hierarchy, prepare yourselfs to be virually
thrown with foul tomatoes and other vegetables/fruits :)
Could you give one example where a fullquote
at the bottom of an article is usefull?
Oli
[1] Text oben Fullquote unten
Text above fullquote bellow
Ben Hiles
>> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 16:14:29 +0200, Boudewijn Waijers wrote:
>
>> > Dreck is German for rubbish,
>
>Untrue. It means 'dirt'. 'Rubbish' would be 'Muell'.
According to my dictionary in English it means "trash, especially
inferior merchandise" so rubbish is a good synonym. In German it
means "dirt or trash" (but I don't speak German so I don't know how
accurate that is). In Yiddish drek means "excrement".
The dictionary also identifies it as slang, so that may explain why
some aren't familiar with it. In my experience (midwest and eastern
US) dreck is a word most people understand.
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins
The source looks something like:
priest%gold=priest%gold+600*me%level
When it executes, the compiler is granted clairvoyance :)
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins
Cantgetaname1234 <cantgeta...@aol.com> wrote:
>Hey I just wanted to jump in and mention that I always top-post when I write in
>other discussion groups and in my e-mail replies. This group is the only one in
>which I bottom-post, and it's just so I don't offend the locals here.
Yeah, and there's folks that relieve themself in the sink at home, and
only do otherwise when they go out. However . . .
Dayv!
> In article <20020920211154...@mb-cp.aol.com>,
> Cantgetaname1234 <cantgeta...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Hey I just wanted to jump in and mention that I always top-post when I write in
>>other discussion groups and in my e-mail replies. This group is the only one in
>>which I bottom-post, and it's just so I don't offend the locals here.
>
> Yeah, and there's folks that relieve themself in the sink at home, and
> only do otherwise when they go out. However . . .
I've only done that once, and it was an emergency. Hey, that reminds
me, do nethack sinks have garbage disposals?
--
-Dayv!
"Chut up!"
Rast
82567.news.dfncis.de>:
> Dr. Richard E. Hawkins <ha...@slytherin.ds.psu.edu> wrote:
> > In article <20020920211154...@mb-cp.aol.com>,
> > Yeah, and there's folks that relieve themself in the sink at home, and
> > only do otherwise when they go out. However . . .
>
> I've only done that once, and it was an emergency. Hey, that reminds
> me, do nethack sinks have garbage disposals?
:(
I think this thread should have died about 3 posts ago.
--
"Sometimes I stand by the door and look into the darkness. Then I
am reminded how dearly I cherish my boredom, and what a precious
commodity is so much misery." -- Jack Vance
Cantgetaname1234
>[top posting]
>> Hey I just wanted to jump in and mention that I always
>> top-post when I write in
>> other discussion groups and in my e-mail replies. This
>> group is the only one in
>> which I bottom-post, and it's just so I don't offend the locals here.
>
>If you produce TOFU[1] in a newsgroup of the
>de.* hierarchy, prepare yourselfs to be virually
>thrown with foul tomatoes and other vegetables/fruits :)
>
>Could you give one example where a fullquote
>at the bottom of an article is usefull?
>
Dude, I never said it's cool to put lengthy fullquotes at the bottom of an
article. Well... ok I did say that I always top-post in other discussion
groups. But I'll amend that by mentioning that I do indeed switch to
bottom-posting in cases that I have to include lenghty quotes from other
writers. But those cases are rare. Most often I only have to include small bits
of relevant quotes anyway. And furthermore, nobody in any other group has ever
complained about me top-posting.
-Jack
Darshan Shaligram
> [...] furthermore, nobody in any other group has ever complained
> about me top-posting.
There are (regrettably) many newsgroups and mailing lists where nobody
complains about upside-down-quoting, either because they don't know
better, or because they have a misguided sense of politeness.
--
Darshan Shaligram dars...@aztec.soft.net
Cantgetaname1234
>> [...] furthermore, nobody in any other group has ever complained
>> about me top-posting.
>
>There are (regrettably) many newsgroups and mailing lists where nobody
>complains about upside-down-quoting, either because they don't know
>better, or because they have a misguided sense of politeness.
>
Hey man, I'm sorry. I honestly never thought about it either way until I
started posting here.
-Jack
Tina Hall
> cantgeta...@aol.com (Cantgetaname1234) writes:
> > [...] furthermore, nobody in any other group has ever
> > complained about me top-posting.
>
> There are (regrettably) many newsgroups and mailing lists
> where nobody complains about upside-down-quoting, either
> because they don't know better, or because they have a
> misguided sense of politeness.
Worse are even those where complains will be flamed, criticised
or just generally ignored. :/
I've taken up the habit of just deleting any top-post unread
(notice stuff above quotes at the top, page down, see only
quotes, exit, kill message) and killfile repeated offenders. That
counts for most emails [1] as well as posts. (My non-existing
patience has run out and left a negative value. <g>)
[1] The one exception is an aquaintance of me who I occasionally
ask stuff per email and do want to know the answer. Enquiries
about why he suddenly doesn't know how to write proper mails
anymore (I mean, he's migrated from Fido where I've never seen
top-posting until some areas were Gated and happy Usenet morons
turned up with their bad habits) were so far ignored. Grmpf.
--
Tina
(insufficiently chaotic): Level 10 HP 61(63) AC 10, confused.
________________________________________________________________
Emails: <Tina...@railroad.robin.de> only.
Asmodeus
news:MSGID_2=3A2433=2F888.111=40fidonet...@fidonet.org...
> I've taken up the habit of just deleting any top-post unread
> (notice stuff above quotes at the top, page down, see only
> quotes, exit, kill message) and killfile repeated offenders. That
You go through all that trouble just to delete top-posts? (and miss perhaps
some important information)
Rast
<3d8dfea6$1...@news.estpak.ee>:
It's not so much trouble, and gives you more time to read other, generally
more interesting, posts.
I killfile on the first offense, unless I know the offender doesn't normally
top-post.
Darshan Shaligram
> "Tina Hall" <ti...@typhoon.kruemel.org> wrote in message
> news:MSGID_2=3A2433=2F888.111=40fidonet...@fidonet.org...
> > I've taken up the habit of just deleting any top-post unread
[...]
> You go through all that trouble just to delete top-posts? (and miss
> perhaps some important information)
Top-posters rarely say anything worthwhile, so killfiling them is no
loss.
--
Darshan Shaligram dars...@aztec.soft.net
Brett R.
It's ok. A lot of people get gang-raped by the
if-any-new-poster-dares-to-top-post-I'll-start-a-new-thread-to-complain
gremlins.
Just think of it as a type of hazing :).
Darshan Shaligram
> [...] A lot of people get gang-raped by the
> if-any-new-poster-dares-to-top-post-I'll-start-a-new-thread-to-complain
> gremlins.
In case you need it spelled out, only new posters are warned on
top-posting because the regulars know enough not to top-post.
Also, as you'd know if you used a real newsreader instead of Google
Groups, we don't start new threads to complain. (Additionally, in this
case, Cantgetaname's References headers were truncated, which is not
uncommon for folks unfortunate enough to be saddled with AOL's
newsreader).
--
Darshan Shaligram dars...@aztec.soft.net
Cantgetaname1234
>> You go through all that trouble just to delete top-posts? (and miss perhaps
>> some important information)
>
>It's not so much trouble, and gives you more time to read other, generally
>more interesting, posts.
>
>I killfile on the first offense, unless I know the offender doesn't normally
>top-post.
>
Well, gee, with sentiment like that, maybe it would be better to top-post, to
weed out the most narrow minded readers from your discussion.
-Jack
Tina Hall
> "Tina Hall" <ti...@typhoon.kruemel.org> wrote in message
> news:MSGID_2=3A2433=2F888.111=40fidonet...@fidonet.org..
> > . I've taken up the habit of just deleting any top-post
> > unread [...] and killfile repeated offenders.
>
> You go through all that trouble just to delete top-posts? (and
> miss perhaps some important information)
No troll or moron (and nothing else is someone who's been told
that it's wrong, IMAO) could have anything to say that is worth
my time. It's no trouble either.
In rgrn, I usually also only read replies to killfiled people
that are written by those that I definitely want to read. (The
setting up of that is slightly troublesome, but worth it.)
--
Tina the Loony St:10 Dx:6 Co:8 In:10 Wi:14 Ch:10 Chaotic
Home2:0 $0 HP:61(63) Pw:15(15) Ac:10 Exp:10/8191 T:>15379200
____________________________________________________________
Emails: <Tina...@railroad.robin.de> only.
Brett R.
> murp...@email.com (Brett R.) writes:
>
> > [...] A lot of people get gang-raped by the
> > if-any-new-poster-dares-to-top-post-I'll-start-a-new-thread-to-complain
> > gremlins.
>
> In case you need it spelled out, only new posters are warned on
> top-posting because the regulars know enough not to top-post.
>
> Also, as you'd know if you used a real newsreader instead of Google
> Groups, we don't start new threads to complain.
Look, if you can bitch about your top posting, I can bitch about my
threads. ok? ok.
Tina Hall
> Rast ra...@hotmail.com wrote:
[top posters]
> >I killfile on the first offense, unless I know the offender
> >doesn't normally top-post.
>
> Well, gee, with sentiment like that, maybe it would be better
> to top-post, to weed out the most narrow minded readers from
> your discussion.
And, as far as I can guess, most of the ones worth reading.
This isn't about narrow mindedness. Hasn't this gotten through to
you by now? This is about not bothering with people who'd
otherwise do the equivalent of walking into your living room,
farting and kicking the dog, putting the feet on the dinner
table, groping the housewive, and loudly demanding food and
drink.
Some people just don't put up with bad manners.
Cantgetaname1234
>> Well, gee, with sentiment like that, maybe it would be better
>> to top-post, to weed out the most narrow minded readers from
>> your discussion.
>
>And, as far as I can guess, most of the ones worth reading.
>
>This isn't about narrow mindedness. Hasn't this gotten through to
>you by now? This is about not bothering with people who'd
>otherwise do the equivalent of walking into your living room,
>farting and kicking the dog, putting the feet on the dinner
>table, groping the housewive, and loudly demanding food and
>drink.
>
>Some people just don't put up with bad manners.
>
Woah! I think that's going a little far, don't you? :-) But anyhow, I'm very
careful not to top-post in this group, because I realize it's a major taboo
here. All we gotta do is understand and respect each other's customs, and we
can all get along, really. :-D
-Jack
Oliver Beckmann
[Top posting]
> Worse are even those where complains will be flamed, criticised
> or just generally ignored. :/
You speak of those microsoft.* groups, do you? ;)
> I've taken up the habit of just deleting any top-post unread
> (notice stuff above quotes at the top, page down, see only
> quotes, exit, kill message) and killfile repeated offenders. That
> counts for most emails [1] as well as posts. (My non-existing
> patience has run out and left a negative value. <g>)
If I don't get the context at the first 2 sentence of
a top post, I leave it behind. I don't killfile them,
because there are much more ways to make unreadable
articles and I had to killfile them all then.
As of emails, there would be only not much left
to read. If I tell them, please don't make TOFU, don't
use html, don't write your text in a *.doc etc.
they say 'Hey, that linux user is ranting again about
us windozers' and they are offended.
Oli
David Damerell
>Rast ra...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>I killfile on the first offense, unless I know the offender doesn't normally
>>top-post.
>Well, gee, with sentiment like that, maybe it would be better to top-post, to
>weed out the most narrow minded readers from your discussion.
Those 'narrow minded' readers are usually amongst the most knowledgeable
readers here.
BTW, have you considered progressing to trimming quoted text?
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins
Cantgetaname1234 <cantgeta...@aol.com> wrote:
>Dude, I never said it's cool to put lengthy fullquotes at the bottom of an
>article. Well... ok I did say that I always top-post in other discussion
>groups. But I'll amend that by mentioning that I do indeed switch to
>bottom-posting in cases that I have to include lenghty quotes from other
>writers. But those cases are rare. Most often I only have to include small bits
>of relevant quotes anyway. And furthermore, nobody in any other group has ever
>complained about me top-posting.
If you look back over the last 15-20 years, you'll find that the
newgroups that survived the eternal september and the imminent death of
the usenet (which did indeed happen) are heavily those where:
1) etiquette was insisted upon, including
2) merciless flaming of non-conforming newbies, and
3) hair-trigger complaints for spam and such.
*most* groups got overrun and became useless.
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins
Cantgetaname1234 <cantgeta...@aol.com> wrote:
>ti...@typhoon.kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:
>>This isn't about narrow mindedness. Hasn't this gotten through to
>>you by now? This is about not bothering with people who'd
>>otherwise do the equivalent of walking into your living room,
>>farting and kicking the dog, putting the feet on the dinner
>>table, groping the housewive, and loudly demanding food and
>>drink.
>>Some people just don't put up with bad manners.
>Woah! I think that's going a little far, don't you? :-)
nope, it's a matter of degree, not nature.
Recall Oscar Wilde and the pest at the cocktail party?
Kevin Wayne
>
> Top-posters rarely say anything worthwhile, so killfiling them is no
> loss.
I don't top-post, so it's no skin off my nose, but I've long wondered
why top-posting is considered The Heinous Posting Offense by some in
this newsgroup. To me, leaving in too much quoted material and too
many levels of quoted material (responses to responses to responses
...) are far more irritating. Check out a group like
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare, where top-posting is rare, but
scrolling through pages of quoted material in order to get a response
(usually something like "So's your mum!" every fifty lines or so) is
so common as to make the group unreadable.
The typical argument against top-posting--that it scrambles levels of
responses rather than presenting them in an orderly fashion--seems to
me fallacious on two grounds. One is what I just mentioned: several
levels of quotations shouldn't be in a post to start with, so even
though
>>> hi
>> how are you doing?
> fine, what's going on?
not much, how's bout you?
is easier to read than
not much, how's bout you?
> fine, what's going on?
>> how are you doing?
>>> hi
the fact is that neither one is proper.
The other reason is that top-posters don't quote like that anyway. The
one positive thing I see about top-posting is that it tends to cause
people to write their response in one self-contextualized chunk,
rather than piecemeal snippets of response. In other words, you're
more likely to explain what you mean by "So's your mum!" if you're not
expecting the quoted material immediately above to explain it for you.
Moreover, once you've read the response, you don't have to scroll
through the quote, if you already understand the context, which you do
have to do in an improperly edited bottom-posted post.
As I said, I personally don't top-post, partly because it's The
Standard and partly because responding to others' posts without
summarizing what they said is often convenient. but I still don't
understand the animus toward those who do.
--
Kevin Wayne
"Thev s#y trat ir Nc#hac#, vou car chcck ou# arv #imc vcu li#e, but
ycu #ar rcvcr lcavc."
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins
Brett R. <murp...@email.com> wrote:
>Darshan Shaligram <dars...@aztec.soft.net> wrote in message
>news:<ur8flo...@aztec.soft.net>...
>> murp...@email.com (Brett R.) writes:
>> > [...] A lot of people get gang-raped by the
>> > if-any-new-poster-dares-to-top-post-I'll-start-a-new-thread-to-complain
>> > gremlins.
The usenet has been run in this manner for 20 years. Unfortunately,
some groups backed down on it, and got overrun.
btw, it's called flaming. It's a lost art, but it's effective.
>> Also, as you'd know if you used a real newsreader instead of Google
>> Groups, we don't start new threads to complain.
>Look, if you can bitch about your top posting, I can bitch about my
>threads. ok? ok.
Hardly comparable. The top-posting is the fault of the top-poster, not
the reader. The thread problem you have is the fault of your choice of
a reader--it can't handle *proper* threading.
It is long established (again, 20 years) that the title of a post should
be changed when the topic changes. For whatever reason, google can't
handle this.
Cantgetaname1234
>>>This is about not bothering with people who'd
>>>otherwise do the equivalent of walking into your living room,
>>>farting and kicking the dog, putting the feet on the dinner
>>Woah! I think that's going a little far, don't you? :-)
>nope, it's a matter of degree, not nature.
If you think that putting your reply at the top of a post rather than the
bottom of a post, is equivalent to kicking one's family pet and fondling their
wife, you *really* need to get a life. Talk about being petty.
-Jack
Dogawful
"Cantgetaname1234" <cantgeta...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020924012959...@mb-cf.aol.com...
>
>
> If you think that putting your reply at the top of a post rather than the
> bottom of a post, is equivalent to kicking one's family pet and fondling
their
> wife, you *really* need to get a life. Talk about being petty.
>
> -Jack
I bet you just earned a spot on the KillFile list!!!
(I happen to agree with you totally Jack, lets stage a protest and only top
post for the entirety of this coming Friday the 27 th)
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.391 / Virus Database: 222 - Release Date: 9/19/2002
Cantgetaname1234
>I bet you just earned a spot on the KillFile list!!!
>(I happen to agree with you totally Jack, lets stage a protest and only top
>post for the entirety of this coming Friday the 27 th)
LOL!! We'd better not, they'd probably send a SWAT team after us. :-)
"Top-posting terrorism", Heh
-Jack
Topi Linkala
> I think this thread should have died about 3 posts ago.
Think about Godwin's Law.
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are
always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
"How come he didn't put 'I think' at the end of it?" - Anonymous
Dylan O'Donnell
> "Cantgetaname1234" <cantgeta...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020924012959...@mb-cf.aol.com...
> >
> > If you think that putting your reply at the top of a post rather
> > than the bottom of a post, is equivalent to kicking one's family
> > pet and fondling their wife, you *really* need to get a life. Talk
> > about being petty.
>
> (I happen to agree with you totally Jack, lets stage a protest and only top
> post for the entirety of this coming Friday the 27 th)
Sigh. And just what would that achieve?
My own take:
Top-posting has some advantages, and a number of disadvantages.
Quote-post has many advantages, and a few disadvantages.
The discrepancy is very noticeable (to me), but I wouldn't argue that
anyone who held the opposite view is automatically wrong. _However_:
Mixing the two styles has innumerable disadvantages, and no advantages.
This is the key thing. Once a group has settled on a style, for what
it considers good reason, using the opposite style is only going to
make any extended thread pretty much unreadable. rgrn is a group where
quote-post is the documented convention. Rejecting that once it's
pointed out to you and continuing to pigheadedly use a different
quoting style is going to get you killfiled, and there's nothing
narrow-minded about it; just a desire to read readable discussion.
--
: Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ :
: "And nickel, neodymium, neptunium, germanium / And iron, americium, :
: ruthenium, uranium, / Europium, zirconium, lutetium, vanadium..." :
: -- Tom Lehrer, "The Elements" :
David Damerell
>"Dogawful" davidklokner_AT_hotmail_DOT_com wrote:
>>I bet you just earned a spot on the KillFile list!!!
>>(I happen to agree with you totally Jack, lets stage a protest and only top
>>post for the entirety of this coming Friday the 27 th)
>LOL!! We'd better not, they'd probably send a SWAT team after us. :-)
I see it really is weenie week on r.g.r.n.
Well, your presumption that you'll get killfiled is entirely correct.
Kevin Wayne
> My own take:
>
> Top-posting has some advantages, and a number of disadvantages.
> Quote-post has many advantages, and a few disadvantages.
>
> The discrepancy is very noticeable (to me), but I wouldn't argue that
> anyone who held the opposite view is automatically wrong. _However_:
>
> Mixing the two styles has innumerable disadvantages, and no advantages.
>
Dylan, thank you for a balanced, reasonable discussion. Infinitely
better than one group calling the other trolls and morons and the
other group calling the first gang-rapists. I know there's the
sentiment of "We've tried to talk sense to people like that before,"
but it's still nice to see reasoned discussion of even such things as
these.
--
Kevin Wayne
Seraph
> Rast wrote:
> > I think this thread should have died about 3 posts ago.
>
> Think about Godwin's Law.
Whats Godwin's Law?
Dogawful
"David Damerell" <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:EJA*0M...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
oh you.......
:)))
Dogawful
"Seraph" <Geoffr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f17e8823.02092...@posting.google.com...
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/