Re: RISC OS Forums Posting Guidelines

21 views
Skip to first unread message

someone

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 5:47:53 PM6/1/05
to
In article <slrnd9rv1q.e...@compsoc.dur.ac.uk>, Peter
Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> In reponse to recent incidents and discussion on the comp.sys.acorn
> hierachy and other RISC OS mailing lists, I've put together a
> series of guidelines for correct posting to RISC OS forums.

> It can be found at http://www.riscos.info/posting/

> -- Peter Naulls - pe...@chocky.org | http://www.chocky.org/
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Please Reply Properly |
> http://www.riscos.info/posting/

Conceited little sh*t

--
__ __
/ \ | _ ' , _| _ / \ _ _ _| _ _
| |/\ |/ /| / \ / | /_\ | / \|/ / | / \\ // |
\__/ | |/| |_/ _/ \_/|/\_, \__/ \_/| \_/|/\_/ \/ \_/|

deco...@ukgateway.net

To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research.

Chika

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 6:04:07 PM6/1/05
to
In article <4d746301e...@ukgateway.net>,

someone <deco...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
> In article <slrnd9rv1q.e...@compsoc.dur.ac.uk>, Peter
> Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> > In reponse to recent incidents and discussion on the comp.sys.acorn
> > hierachy and other RISC OS mailing lists, I've put together a
> > series of guidelines for correct posting to RISC OS forums.

> > It can be found at http://www.riscos.info/posting/

<snip>
Peter's sig sep isn't correctly handled, so it seems.

> Conceited little sh*t

That's a bit strong! Having read through it, most of it is just a
rehashing of all the various versions of netiquette. The version I started
with was the one that appeared on zfc from Richard Travers, which can be
seen at http://crashnet.org.uk/zfc/sixt.html. There are a few extra bits
in this new guide that appear to be tailored to the authors' own tastes
(the car analogy bit, for example), but it's nothing special otherwise.
Maybe a little high-handed, if you will.

I just believe that what goes around, comes around, and there are a lot
worse places on Usenet than the csa groups.

While I am thinking about it, I notice this new page talks of Google as if
it were the only way to search online. Being one of many in these groups
that have been around on the net since before Google became so big, I
should point out that other search engines are available, from old
favourites such as AltaVista (http://uk.altavista.com/) to newbies such as
Beegoo (http://www.beegoo.com/), each of which may contain ready links to
whatever you need. I see no reason to provide Google with yet more free
endorsement.

--
//\ // Chika <zvl...@penfuarg.bet.hx. - ROT13>
// \// Hitting Googlespammers with hyper-hammers!

... Boldly going Forward because we can't find Reverse!

Peter Naulls

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 6:23:18 PM6/1/05
to
In message <4d746301e...@ukgateway.net>
someone <deco...@ukgateway.net> wrote:

> In article <slrnd9rv1q.e...@compsoc.dur.ac.uk>, Peter
> Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> > In reponse to recent incidents and discussion on the comp.sys.acorn
> > hierachy and other RISC OS mailing lists, I've put together a
> > series of guidelines for correct posting to RISC OS forums.
>
> > It can be found at http://www.riscos.info/posting/
>
> > -- Peter Naulls - pe...@chocky.org | http://www.chocky.org/
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Please Reply Properly |
> > http://www.riscos.info/posting/
>
> Conceited little sh*t

There's always one isn't there? But I'm glad you felt the need to make
construstive comments. With offensive users like you, why do developers
bother?

--
Peter Naulls - pe...@chocky.org | http://www.chocky.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unix Programs on RISC OS | http://www.riscos.info/unix/

Steve Fryatt

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 7:03:13 PM6/1/05
to
On 1 Jun, someone wrote in message
<4d746301e...@ukgateway.net>:

> In article <slrnd9rv1q.e...@compsoc.dur.ac.uk>, Peter
> Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
>
> > In reponse to recent incidents and discussion on the comp.sys.acorn
> > hierachy and other RISC OS mailing lists, I've put together a series
> > of guidelines for correct posting to RISC OS forums.
>
> > It can be found at http://www.riscos.info/posting/
>

> Conceited little sh*t

Did you mean to contribute something /useful/ there?

--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England

http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/

Message has been deleted

Liz

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 7:07:01 PM6/1/05
to
In message <4d74647e...@no.spam.here>
Chika <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:


> While I am thinking about it, I notice this new page talks of Google as if
> it were the only way to search online. Being one of many in these groups
> that have been around on the net since before Google became so big, I
> should point out that other search engines are available, from old
> favourites such as AltaVista (http://uk.altavista.com/) to newbies such as
> Beegoo (http://www.beegoo.com/), each of which may contain ready links to
> whatever you need. I see no reason to provide Google with yet more free
> endorsement.
>

I'd never heard of beegoo before, so moseyed over.
I've got a particular keyword, which is 6th "of around 61,600" on
Google. It's not top 50 in beegoo.
Any idea what beegoo's bot is called? I've never noticed it in my
stats.

Slainte

Liz

--
Virtual Liz now at http://www.v-liz.com
Kenya; Tanzania; Namibia; India; Seychelles; Galapagos
"I speak of Africa and golden joys"

Peter Naulls

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 7:20:24 PM6/1/05
to
In message <4d74647e...@no.spam.here>
Chika <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:

> While I am thinking about it, I notice this new page talks of Google as if
> it were the only way to search online. Being one of many in these groups
> that have been around on the net since before Google became so big, I
> should point out that other search engines are available, from old
> favourites such as AltaVista (http://uk.altavista.com/) to newbies such as
> Beegoo (http://www.beegoo.com/),

Problem is, after AltaVista's 1999 facelift, they really did suck, and
Google was increasingly useful. I appreciate that much has changed since
then, and they've undergone at least one more since then, and search
technology continues to improve. But the irony now is that the most
recent AV incarnation looks very much like Google. And if you take a
look at Yahoo! search, it too bears an uncanny resemblance. The
conspiracy deepens if you look at the new Google personalised pages -
looks rather like Yahoo!'s front page, doesn't it?

> each of which may contain ready links to whatever you need. I see no
> reason to provide Google with yet more free endorsement.

Never mind that Google has provided me with literally thousands (perhaps
10s of thousands) of searches for free, or that Google searches often
turn up RISC OS pages for computing topics that you might at first think
ought to rank elsewhere higher (try "unix ports" in a search engine).

Chika

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 7:15:31 PM6/1/05
to
In article <49406a744d...@liz13.uklinux.net>, Liz

<inv...@v-liz.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <4d74647e...@no.spam.here> Chika
> <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:


> > While I am thinking about it, I notice this new page talks of Google
> > as if it were the only way to search online. Being one of many in
> > these groups that have been around on the net since before Google
> > became so big, I should point out that other search engines are
> > available, from old favourites such as AltaVista
> > (http://uk.altavista.com/) to newbies such as Beegoo
> > (http://www.beegoo.com/), each of which may contain ready links to
> > whatever you need. I see no reason to provide Google with yet more
> > free endorsement.
> >
> I'd never heard of beegoo before, so moseyed over. I've got a particular
> keyword, which is 6th "of around 61,600" on Google. It's not top 50 in
> beegoo. Any idea what beegoo's bot is called? I've never noticed it in
> my stats.

Offhand, I couldn't tell you. I stumbled across them recently after
mistyping "google" and have only used them a couple of times.

--
//\ // Chika <zvl...@penfuarg.bet.hx. - ROT13>
// \// Hitting Googlespammers with hyper-hammers!

... A trampoline is for cunning stunts, a truncheon for apprehending criminals

Chika

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 7:36:39 PM6/1/05
to
In article <9f896b74...@chocky.org>, Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org>
wrote:

> In message <4d74647e...@no.spam.here> Chika
> <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:

> > While I am thinking about it, I notice this new page talks of Google
> > as if it were the only way to search online. Being one of many in
> > these groups that have been around on the net since before Google
> > became so big, I should point out that other search engines are
> > available, from old favourites such as AltaVista
> > (http://uk.altavista.com/) to newbies such as Beegoo
> > (http://www.beegoo.com/),

> Problem is, after AltaVista's 1999 facelift, they really did suck, and
> Google was increasingly useful. I appreciate that much has changed since
> then, and they've undergone at least one more since then, and search
> technology continues to improve. But the irony now is that the most
> recent AV incarnation looks very much like Google. And if you take a
> look at Yahoo! search, it too bears an uncanny resemblance. The
> conspiracy deepens if you look at the new Google personalised pages -
> looks rather like Yahoo!'s front page, doesn't it?

Quite so, but considering that Google's original layout looked very
similar to the old AV, the question is whether there is much you can do to
a search engine site to make it look sufficiently different. One thing I
tend to find with using different engines is that each prioritises its
results in a different way, hence finding some things on one engine will
be somewhat easier than on another.

> > each of which may contain ready links to whatever you need. I see no
> > reason to provide Google with yet more free endorsement.

> Never mind that Google has provided me with literally thousands (perhaps
> 10s of thousands) of searches for free, or that Google searches often
> turn up RISC OS pages for computing topics that you might at first think
> ought to rank elsewhere higher (try "unix ports" in a search engine).

I don't mind, but then this page isn't about you, it is about the way in
which we, the people that participate in this group, should be posting.
It's bad enough where some sites say that we must use a particular
browser, without them then telling us to arbitrarily use a specific web
resource without fair mention of other available resources.

--
//\ // Chika <zvl...@penfuarg.bet.hx. - ROT13>
// \// Hitting Googlespammers with hyper-hammers!

... I can't think of anything witty to say right now.

Peter Naulls

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 7:49:47 PM6/1/05
to

In message <4d746cf6...@no.spam.here>
Chika <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:

No, I don't agree - this is a contrived comparison from your dislike of
Google. The problem with browsers is a question of accessibility,
security and perhaps of open source and closed standards - none of
which really applies here. Google is readily avilable to anyone with
even some archaic browsers - by all means use other resources if you
want to, but making a fuss and suggesting we ought to be for no other
reason than there happens to be choice is just silly.

Chika

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 8:35:12 PM6/1/05
to
In article <e4746e74...@chocky.org>, Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org>

wrote:
> In message <4d746cf6...@no.spam.here> Chika
> <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:

> > In article <9f896b74...@chocky.org>, Peter Naulls
> > <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:

> > > Never mind that Google has provided me with literally thousands
> > > (perhaps 10s of thousands) of searches for free, or that Google
> > > searches often turn up RISC OS pages for computing topics that you
> > > might at first think ought to rank elsewhere higher (try "unix
> > > ports" in a search engine).
> >
> > I don't mind, but then this page isn't about you, it is about the way
> > in which we, the people that participate in this group, should be
> > posting. It's bad enough where some sites say that we must use a
> > particular browser, without them then telling us to arbitrarily use a
> > specific web resource without fair mention of other available
> > resources.

> No, I don't agree - this is a contrived comparison from your dislike of
> Google.

Now, how did I guess that this would rear its ugly head? No, this has
nothing to do with my "dislike of Google". Actually, I freely admit that I
use Google for searches and have done for years, just as I have used other
engines. My dislike is of Googlegroups, which is slightly different, but
as that has nothing to do with the topic of search engines, I'll leave
that aside for now.

> The problem with browsers is a question of accessibility, security and
> perhaps of open source and closed standards - none of which really
> applies here.

It does seem that, as in the other post, you have gone to extraordinary
lengths to misinterpret my words. Quite amazing, really.

> Google is readily avilable to anyone with even some archaic browsers -
> by all means use other resources if you want to, but making a fuss and
> suggesting we ought to be for no other reason than there happens to be
> choice is just silly.

Well, don't say that you haven't been warned. Dismiss it if you like, but
companies have gone further than this where they believe that they aren't
being given a fair crack. So which is sillier; my calling you out for
this, or your attitude towards the availability of other resources?

--
//\ // Chika <zvl...@penfuarg.bet.hx. - ROT13>
// \// Hitting Googlespammers with hyper-hammers!

... See that LCD game, That's your VGA monitor that is

Peter Naulls

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 2:25:34 AM6/2/05
to
In message <4d747252...@no.spam.here>
Chika <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:

> In article <e4746e74...@chocky.org>, Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org>
> wrote:
> > No, I don't agree - this is a contrived comparison from your dislike of
> > Google.
>
> Now, how did I guess that this would rear its ugly head?

Because it's far from clear what point you're making. And because
you've made comments elsewhere which certainly suggest this.

> > The problem with browsers is a question of accessibility, security and
> > perhaps of open source and closed standards - none of which really
> > applies here.
>
> It does seem that, as in the other post, you have gone to extraordinary
> lengths to misinterpret my words. Quite amazing, really.

On the contrary, I replied to _precisely_ what you said. The onus is on
you to be much clearer if you thought you meant something else.

> Well, don't say that you haven't been warned. Dismiss it if you like, but
> companies have gone further than this where they believe that they aren't
> being given a fair crack. So which is sillier; my calling you out for
> this, or your attitude towards the availability of other resources?

I'm afraid this doesn't make any sense at all. I wish you'd stop
wasting our time with these arguments.

--
Peter Naulls - pe...@chocky.org | http://www.chocky.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul F. Johnson

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 3:22:19 AM6/2/05
to
--
"Space", it says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how
vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big space really is. I mean, you may
think it's a long way down the road to the chemists, but that's just
*peanuts* compared to space, listen" - Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy

Thank you. Just what I alway's wanted.

Chris de Cordova

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 6:32:36 AM6/2/05
to
In article <4d746969aeu...@segfault.co.uk>, pv
<usenet...@segfault.co.uk> wrote:
> Some people are just so thick and ignorant that when they run out
> of argument and have to resort to obscene language they can't even
> spell a simple four letter word!
> I'd let them crawl back under the stone they crawled out of and get > back on with your programming, ignoring them.

> Some of us appreciate what you're doing!
In article <4d746969aeu...@segfault.co.uk>,
pv <usenet...@segfault.co.uk> wrote:
> Some of us appreciate what you're doing!


Paul, I looked for the smiley in your post but there wan't one. So I
read it again and feel somewhat disappointed that you think I can't
spell that four letter word!

Do you *really* appreciate being told how to spell Peter Naulls' own
name on what presumably was meant to be a general set of public
guidelines on usenet? This makes it very personal to him and thus
implies a whole set of its own implications of ownership.

Do you really need to be told to use both contractional and
possessive apostrophes correctly? And if you have a literacy problem,
does it help to be reminded of it out of context?

I have no problem with the rest of the guidelines where they are
related to use of usenet and to the c.s.a* groups in particular. They
are clear and easy to understand. It was only when I got to the final
paragraphs that I became offended.

But I really resent being told by a young man, with no social skills
whatsoever (only very high technical ones, which I can never hope to
even appreciate) how to suck eggs.

--
__ __
/ \ | _ ' , _| _ / \ _ _ _| _ _
| |/\ |/ /| / \ / | /_\ | / \|/ / | / \\ // |
\__/ | |/| |_/ _/ \_/|/\_, \__/ \_/| \_/|/\_/ \/ \_/|

deco...@ukgateway.net

Dancing is a perpendicular expression of a horizontal desire.

Peter Naulls

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 6:48:35 AM6/2/05
to
In message <4d74a9049...@ukgateway.net>

Chris de Cordova <deco...@ukgateway.net> wrote:

> Do you *really* appreciate being told how to spell Peter Naulls' own


> name on what presumably was meant to be a general set of public
> guidelines on usenet? This makes it very personal to him and thus
> implies a whole set of its own implications of ownership.

Told? No, it's a set of guidelines. Neverthless, it's an example of
something which people get wrong often. It would be innappropriate to
use someone else's name, even though there are ones I could use.

> Do you really need to be told to use both contractional and
> possessive apostrophes correctly?

Given how lazy many people seem to be, who really do know, yes.
If you know how to use them just fine, then they remain guidelines.

> And if you have a literacy problem,
> does it help to be reminded of it out of context?

There's no pretence of any such thing, and claiming otherwise is just
picking a fight.

> But I really resent being told by a young man, with no social skills
> whatsoever (only very high technical ones, which I can never hope to
> even appreciate) how to suck eggs.

This is pretty rich, from the person who yesterday used offensive
language with no justification at all. As for sucking eggs, there are
numerous guidelines on the internet for all kinds of things I'm sure you
know how to do perfectly well already. It's a bit foolish to claim my
particular guidelines are any different.

--
Peter Naulls - pe...@chocky.org | http://www.chocky.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

RISC OS C Programming | http://www.riscos.info/c/

Tim Hill

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 7:39:01 AM6/2/05
to
In article <86e76974...@helvellyn.stevefryatt.org.uk>, Steve Fryatt

<ne...@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> On 1 Jun, someone wrote in message <4d746301e...@ukgateway.net>:

> > In article <slrnd9rv1q.e...@compsoc.dur.ac.uk>, Peter
> > Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:

> > > [my] guidelines for [my opinion of what constitutes] correct
> > > posting to RISC OS forums. can be found at


> > > http://www.riscos.info/posting/
> >
> > Conceited little sh*t

> Did you mean to contribute something /useful/ there?

It looks like one opinion in response to another set of opinions whose
link PN posted to c.s.a.announce. Here begins (continues) the unnecessary
flame wars based on a lack of understanding of human nature . . . on many
sides.

I'm not certain the original posting contributed anything new, though its
usefulness may shine in time to come. A shame it contained (IMVHO) items
of personal rather than general taste. (e.g. who--apart from PN--really
cares if car analogies are used? They help some people in their
understanding and their ability to explain. Just don't mention the War
...)

On a more relevant note a word about web searches: why isn't every RISC
OS user recommending Patrick Mortara's RiscSearch which uses 19 search
engines? http://www.riscsearch.de/

It's fab. A search for 'netiquette' returned
http://www.fau.edu/netiquette/net/
http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
as the first two hits which both contain some good stuff and could have
saved Peter's time when he maybe has more important things to do. ;-)

--
To leave BT's billing and reduce your phone bill by up to a half,
to obtain your own spam-proof address, or to contact me, visit
www.invalid.org.uk or email postmaster at invalid dot org dot uk
(To avoid spam, email to 1...@invalid.org.uk is deleted unread).


... "'Tis good to be sad and say nothing" A Y L I, Act iv, Sc.1

mar...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 9:09:10 AM6/2/05
to
Chris wrote:
> In article <slrnd9rv1q.e...@compsoc.dur.ac.uk>, Peter
> Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> > In reponse to recent incidents and discussion on the comp.sys.acorn
> > hierachy and other RISC OS mailing lists, I've put together a
> > series of guidelines for correct posting to RISC OS forums.
>
> > It can be found at http://www.riscos.info/posting/
>
>
> Conceited little sh*t
>

Try this one.

http://www.ietf.org.uk/usenet.html

Peter

Chris de Cordova

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 9:44:18 AM6/2/05
to
In article <1117717750.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,

> Try this one.

> http://www.ietf.org.uk/usenet.html


Now that I do like!!

--
__ __
/ \ | _ ' , _| _ / \ _ _ _| _ _
| |/\ |/ /| / \ / | /_\ | / \|/ / | / \\ // |
\__/ | |/| |_/ _/ \_/|/\_, \__/ \_/| \_/|/\_/ \/ \_/|

deco...@ukgateway.net

The man who fell into an upholstery machine is fully recovered.

Paul F. Johnson

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 12:19:51 PM6/2/05
to
Hi,

On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 06:25 +0000, Peter Naulls wrote:
> In message <4d747252...@no.spam.here>
> Chika <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:

> > Well, don't say that you haven't been warned. Dismiss it if you like, but
> > companies have gone further than this where they believe that they aren't
> > being given a fair crack. So which is sillier; my calling you out for
> > this, or your attitude towards the availability of other resources?
>
> I'm afraid this doesn't make any sense at all. I wish you'd stop
> wasting our time with these arguments.

Given that this is a public forum where anyone can follow the
proceedings, I can understand the above argument from Peter. What I
can't understand is why he considers it a waste of someone elses time. I
can understand it being a waste of his, but how can he say it is a waste
of mine or anyone elses?

TTFN

Paul

Peter Naulls

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 12:22:53 PM6/2/05
to
In message <1117729191.27658.9.camel@localhost>

"Paul F. Johnson" <pa...@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote:

> Given that this is a public forum where anyone can follow the
> proceedings, I can understand the above argument from Peter. What I
> can't understand is why he considers it a waste of someone elses time. I
> can understand it being a waste of his, but how can he say it is a waste
> of mine or anyone elses?

Given how much time _you've_ wasted in the past of people's time, I
don't really think you should be trying to answer this.

--
Peter Naulls - pe...@chocky.org | http://www.chocky.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul F. Johnson

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 1:04:42 PM6/2/05
to
Hi,

On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 16:22 +0000, Peter Naulls wrote:
> In message <1117729191.27658.9.camel@localhost>
> "Paul F. Johnson" <pa...@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Given that this is a public forum where anyone can follow the
> > proceedings, I can understand the above argument from Peter. What I
> > can't understand is why he considers it a waste of someone elses time. I
> > can understand it being a waste of his, but how can he say it is a waste
> > of mine or anyone elses?
>
> Given how much time _you've_ wasted in the past of people's time, I
> don't really think you should be trying to answer this.

I'm not trying to answer anything here. I've raised a point which you've
decided to round on for no real reason instead of actually answering the
point raised.

For the hard of hearing, here it is again...

...how can he say it is a waste of mine or anyone elses?

Instead of just trying to jump up and down and be the "big man" (so to
speak), try a bit of civility.

Peter Naulls

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 2:13:56 PM6/2/05
to
In message <1117731882.27658.15.camel@localhost>

"Paul F. Johnson" <pa...@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 16:22 +0000, Peter Naulls wrote:


> I'm not trying to answer anything here. I've raised a point which you've
> decided to round on for no real reason instead of actually answering the
> point raised.

I would say it was ironic, but this is a concept you seem to have had
troubles with in the past.

> For the hard of hearing, here it is again...
>
> ...how can he say it is a waste of mine or anyone elses?

I can say it because he's trying to make a pointless argument about
something he didn't define at all well. A bit like your reply here,
oddly enough. I don't really believe you've posted just now to be
constructive or "return to the fold", you just thought you'd try and
have a go at me for the sake of it.

--
Peter Naulls - pe...@chocky.org | http://www.chocky.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

druck

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 3:01:19 PM6/2/05
to
On 2 Jun 2005 Tim Hill <1...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> It's fab. A search for 'netiquette' returned
> http://www.fau.edu/netiquette/net/
> http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
> as the first two hits which both contain some good stuff and could have
> saved Peter's time when he maybe has more important things to do. ;-)

The references I give are:-

The news.newusers.questions FAQ http://www.plig.net/nnq/nquote.html
How to post to uk news groups http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html
Proper quoting style explained http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/quote.html

---druck

--
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/

Paul F. Johnson

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 3:31:51 PM6/2/05
to
On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 18:13 +0000, Peter Naulls wrote:
> In message <1117731882.27658.15.camel@localhost>
> "Paul F. Johnson" <pa...@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I'm not trying to answer anything here. I've raised a point which you've
> > decided to round on for no real reason instead of actually answering the
> > point raised.
>
> I would say it was ironic, but this is a concept you seem to have had
> troubles with in the past.

Ah insults. Last standpoint of the desperate.

> > For the hard of hearing, here it is again...
> >
> > ...how can he say it is a waste of mine or anyone elses?
>
> I can say it because he's trying to make a pointless argument about
> something he didn't define at all well. A bit like your reply here,
> oddly enough.

No, I did define it very well. As I said, how can you say that something
is a waste of time for someone else when you don't know what constitutes
a waste of time for anyone other than yourself.

> I don't really believe you've posted just now to be
> constructive or "return to the fold", you just thought you'd try and
> have a go at me for the sake of it.

Try reading what I said then rather than just jumping. I actually agreed
with something you said, but then question the rest of it. Nothing bad
was meant, merely asking on what grounds you can judge what anyone other
than yourself constitutes a waste of time. You used the word "our" (and
in this context, our means csam and therefore means the readership of
the thread) which can only mean everyone here or who stumbles on this.

Now, is it possible that with certain people you are not capable of
holding a rational conversation or to be civil with them or are not able
to let bygones be bygones? All evidence points to no. Oh well, such is
the rich tapestry of life.

People disagree, some get over it, others don't and hold a grudge for
too long (and yes, I know I'm as guilty of that as the next man...) and
others just are incapable of answering a direct question without
resorting to petty insults. Time for another coffee.

Peter Naulls

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 3:38:10 PM6/2/05
to
In message <1117740711.31221.10.camel@localhost>

"Paul F. Johnson" <pa...@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 18:13 +0000, Peter Naulls wrote:
> > In message <1117731882.27658.15.camel@localhost>
> > "Paul F. Johnson" <pa...@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > I would say it was ironic, but this is a concept you seem to have had
> > troubles with in the past.
>
> Ah insults. Last standpoint of the desperate.

No, an observation. Irony continues to be a concept that passes you
by.

[snip waffle]

So, in conclusion, you really didn't have anything of value to add to
this thread.

--
Peter Naulls - pe...@chocky.org | http://www.chocky.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Drobe - http://www.drobe.co.uk/ | The Premier RISC OS News Site

Paul F. Johnson

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 3:40:03 PM6/2/05
to
On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 19:38 +0000, Peter Naulls wrote:
> In message <1117740711.31221.10.camel@localhost>
> "Paul F. Johnson" <pa...@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 18:13 +0000, Peter Naulls wrote:
> > > In message <1117731882.27658.15.camel@localhost>
> > > "Paul F. Johnson" <pa...@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > I would say it was ironic, but this is a concept you seem to have had
> > > troubles with in the past.
> >
> > Ah insults. Last standpoint of the desperate.
>
> No, an observation. Irony continues to be a concept that passes you
> by.

Depends on how you look at it. I have no problem with irony.

> [snip waffle]
>
> So, in conclusion, you really didn't have anything of value to add to
> this thread.

Actually, it seems that you have nothing really to add to it. You've not
addressed any of the valid points raised. Instead, you dismiss the lot
with a wave of the hand.

So much for the stuff you've put up. You seem quite happy to ignore it.

Tim Hill

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 2:20:27 PM6/2/05
to
In article <ac4cd274...@chocky.org>, Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org>
wrote:

> In message <1117731882.27658.15.camel@localhost> "Paul F. Johnson"
> <pa...@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote:

> > On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 16:22 +0000, Peter Naulls wrote:


> > I'm not trying to answer anything here. I've raised a point which
> > you've decided to round on for no real reason instead of actually
> > answering the point raised.

> I would say it was ironic, but this is a concept you seem to have had
> troubles with in the past.

Which emoticon should you have used to denote irony?

[Snip]

--
To leave BT's billing and reduce your phone bill by up to a half,
to obtain your own spam-proof address, or to contact me, visit
www.invalid.org.uk or email postmaster at invalid dot org dot uk
(To avoid spam, email to 1...@invalid.org.uk is deleted unread).


... "Things must be as they may" Henry V, Act ii. Sc.1

Peter Naulls

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 3:43:39 PM6/2/05
to
In message <4d74d...@invalid.org.uk>
Tim Hill <1...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:

> In article <ac4cd274...@chocky.org>, Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org>
> wrote:
> > In message <1117731882.27658.15.camel@localhost> "Paul F. Johnson"
> > <pa...@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 16:22 +0000, Peter Naulls wrote:
>
>
> > > I'm not trying to answer anything here. I've raised a point which
> > > you've decided to round on for no real reason instead of actually
> > > answering the point raised.
>
> > I would say it was ironic, but this is a concept you seem to have had
> > troubles with in the past.
>
> Which emoticon should you have used to denote irony?

Well, I didn't actually say anything ironic, it was Paul that did so.
He was after an answer to a question - problem is, he spent several
years dodging questions asked of him on usenet, so it's a bit much to
expect people to return the favour.

--
Peter Naulls - pe...@chocky.org | http://www.chocky.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul F. Johnson

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 4:00:07 PM6/2/05
to
On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 19:43 +0000, Peter Naulls wrote:
> In message <4d74d...@invalid.org.uk>
> Tim Hill <1...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:


> > Which emoticon should you have used to denote irony?

> He was after an answer to a question - problem is, he spent several


> years dodging questions asked of him on usenet, so it's a bit much to
> expect people to return the favour.

Such as? I try not to dodge any direct questions.

Chris de Cordova

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 4:08:51 PM6/2/05
to
In article <4d74647e...@no.spam.here>,

Chika <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> > > It can be found at http://www.riscos.info/posting/

> <snip>
> Peter's sig sep isn't correctly handled, so it seems.

Just noticed this!!!!!! Well-spotted.

ROTFL

--
__ __
/ \ | _ ' , _| _ / \ _ _ _| _ _
| |/\ |/ /| / \ / | /_\ | / \|/ / | / \\ // |
\__/ | |/| |_/ _/ \_/|/\_, \__/ \_/| \_/|/\_/ \/ \_/|

deco...@ukgateway.net

I am in shape. Round's a shape...

Peter Naulls

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 4:13:28 PM6/2/05
to
In message <4d74ddc6a...@ukgateway.net>

Chris de Cordova <deco...@ukgateway.net> wrote:

> In article <4d74647e...@no.spam.here>,
> Chika <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> > > > It can be found at http://www.riscos.info/posting/
>
> > <snip>
> > Peter's sig sep isn't correctly handled, so it seems.
>
> Just noticed this!!!!!! Well-spotted.
>
> ROTFL

Well, zero points for explaining yourself. But allow me to guess -
somehow your inability to properly snip my signature (in your original
ill-formatted message) - which most other people have no problem at all
having their clients do is somehow hilarious.

No doubt you'll explain in the fullness of the time why this is the
case, or precisely what you think is responsible for it not being
"correctly handled". You wouldn't want to seem conceited now, would
you?

Rob Davison

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 4:27:23 PM6/2/05
to

LOL.

Much better.


Rob.
--
Maple Glen http://www.mapleglen.co.nz/
Images http://www.pbase.com/mapleglen/

Message has been deleted

Dave Symes

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 4:48:50 PM6/2/05
to
In article <ac4cd274...@chocky.org>,
Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:

> you just thought you'd try and have a go at me for the sake of it.

New thread perhaps. Paranoia rules okay. ;-)

GD

--

Chris de Cordova

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 5:10:23 PM6/2/05
to

With ref to Chika's observation that "Peter's sig sep isn't correctly
handled..."

Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> In reponse to recent incidents and discussion on the comp.sys.acorn
> hierachy and other RISC OS mailing lists, I've put together a
> series of guidelines for correct posting to RISC OS forums.

> It can be found at http://www.riscos.info/posting/

> --

> Peter Naulls - pe...@chocky.org | http://www.chocky.org/
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Please Reply Properly | http://www.riscos.info/posting/

There you are, Peter, can you explain this failed sig separation,
then?

I normally rely on Pluto to do the biz - and it doesn't fail when I
reply to anyone else's posts.

I think I will just go and try a few more to see what happens.

--
__ __
/ \ | _ ' , _| _ / \ _ _ _| _ _
| |/\ |/ /| / \ / | /_\ | / \|/ / | / \\ // |
\__/ | |/| |_/ _/ \_/|/\_, \__/ \_/| \_/|/\_/ \/ \_/|

deco...@ukgateway.net

If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving definitely isn't for you.

Chris de Cordova

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 5:17:30 PM6/2/05
to
In article <e14dde74...@chocky.org>, Peter Naulls

<pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> In message <4d74ddc6a...@ukgateway.net> Chris de Cordova
> <deco...@ukgateway.net> wrote:

> > In article <4d74647e...@no.spam.here>, Chika
> > <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > It can be found at http://www.riscos.info/posting/
> >
> > > <snip> Peter's sig sep isn't correctly handled, so it seems.
> >
> > Just noticed this!!!!!! Well-spotted.
> >
> > ROTFL

> Well, zero points for explaining yourself. But allow me to guess -
> somehow your inability to properly snip my signature (in your
> original ill-formatted message) - which most other people have no
> problem at all having their clients do is somehow hilarious.

> No doubt you'll explain in the fullness of the time why this is the
> case, or precisely what you think is responsible for it not being
> "correctly handled". You wouldn't want to seem conceited now,
> would you?

Well I was going to say I can't be conceited about my own miniscule
technical ability, can I, but I think I have worked out for myself
how it happened, which fills me with great pride at my own
achievement!

Someone else (n.g.b...@durham.ac.uk) quoted your post and HIS news
client failed to snip the sig. Pluto on my machines snipped HIS sig
OK.!!

Interesting, isn't it?

--
__ __
/ \ | _ ' , _| _ / \ _ _ _| _ _
| |/\ |/ /| / \ / | /_\ | / \|/ / | / \\ // |
\__/ | |/| |_/ _/ \_/|/\_, \__/ \_/| \_/|/\_/ \/ \_/|

deco...@ukgateway.net

I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize.

Liz

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 5:07:59 PM6/2/05
to
In message <4d74df5cd...@onetel.net.uk>

"Barry Allen (news)" <evan...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:

>> Try this one.
>
>> http://www.ietf.org.uk/usenet.html
>

> I like it!

Me2

Slainte

Liz


--
Virtual Liz now at http://www.v-liz.com
Kenya; Tanzania; Namibia; India; Seychelles; Galapagos
"I speak of Africa and golden joys"

Peter Naulls

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 5:36:01 PM6/2/05
to
In message <4d74e3689...@ukgateway.net>

Chris de Cordova <deco...@ukgateway.net> wrote:

>
> There you are, Peter, can you explain this failed sig separation,
> then?

Possibly I can:

> Someone else (n.g.b...@durham.ac.uk) quoted your post and HIS news
> client failed to snip the sig. Pluto on my machines snipped HIS sig
> OK.!!

Well, that's not really what happened. Nick is of course the back up
moderator, and was resposible for making the post to csaa in the first
place - so didn't really quote it. As such my post ended up containing
two valid signature separators - mine, and his.

My guess is that whilst Messenger cuts at the first separator, Pluto
cuts at the last. You can debate which is most appropriate.

There are various reasons why we wouldn't normally see this:

Probably more people use Messenger than Pluto
Many posts to csaa don't contain signature separtors
Most posts are made by Andrew Conroy who, whilst adding information at
the end doesn't use a signature separtor.
And perhaps most importantly, seasoned usenetters would automatically
trim such things without even thinking.

Moral of the story: think a little before you post.


--
Peter Naulls - pe...@chocky.org | http://www.chocky.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stefan Bellon

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 5:40:57 PM6/2/05
to
Chris de Cordova wrote:
> I have no problem with the rest of the guidelines where they are
> related to use of usenet and to the c.s.a* groups in particular. They
> are clear and easy to understand. It was only when I got to the final
> paragraphs that I became offended.

I just read Peter's page because of your posting. I didn't find
*anything* offensive in Peter's guidelines. It's a very accurate and
detailed explanation of what to do and what to omit when posting to
RISC OS forums. Parts are more generic, parts are tailored to RISC OS
and a few parts are specific to Peter's experience in the RISC OS
forums. But there is nothing offensive on that page. If you find
something offensive, then you should go and see someone, really!

And especially your comment in <4d746301e...@ukgateway.net> is
more than misplaced and demands an apology to Peter who has again put
time into making the "RISC OS place" a better place to be in, with your
comment not being what he deserves.

Regarding the use of proper English language: I am no native English
speaking person. I've learnt English at school and my English teachers
did everything to convince me that I cannot speak and write English.
But anyway, I'm trying hard to use English the proper way. And if I
make mistakes I'm open to constructive criticism so that I can improve
my English. So, if I take the time and concentrate on my English, why
shouldn't native English speaking people do the same? I feel much more
respected if I get an answer in proper English than any slang words or
answers with obvious wrong grammar and/or misplaced punctuation.

> But I really resent being told by a young man, with no social skills
> whatsoever (only very high technical ones, which I can never hope to
> even appreciate) how to suck eggs.

You keep on to ride about your age and gender. It's not the first time
you bring up this argument. I saw others involved in such a discussion
and I was involved in one with you as well. I don't understand your
problem. Perhaps I don't have to, but at least it doesn't belong into
RISC OS forums.

--
Stefan Bellon

VinceH (real address)

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 7:09:27 PM6/2/05
to
In article <4d74e3689...@ukgateway.net>,

Chris de Cordova <deco...@ukgateway.net> wrote:

[...]

> There you are, Peter, can you explain this failed sig
> separation, then?

It's a feature of Pluto.

It attempts to find the sig-separator by working backwards
from the end of the post - doing that, the first one it
finds is Nick Boalch's, as he is the moderator who
approved the post for csa.announce. That is the separator
that Pluto uses, and the /original/ signature, therefore,
doesn't get touched.

In such circumstances it is up to the person quoting the
message to tidy it by removing the quoted signature.

> I normally rely on Pluto to do the biz - and it doesn't fail
> when I reply to anyone else's posts.

It does, consistently, when replying to a message that
has an extra sig + separator.

> I think I will just go and try a few more to see what happens.

[...]

VinceH

--
http://www.softrock.co.uk http://www.webchange.co.uk http://www.vinceh.com
What can just about be described as a bio: http://www.vinceh.com/vinceh/
"Zombies, man... They creep me out."

Theo Markettos

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 7:20:46 PM6/2/05
to
Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> In reponse to recent incidents and discussion on the comp.sys.acorn
> hierachy and other RISC OS mailing lists, I've put together a series of
> guidelines for correct posting to RISC OS forums.

Can I just point out that the plural of 'forum' is 'fora'?
<ducks> :-)

Theo

Elaine Jones

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 7:47:24 PM6/2/05
to
Quoting from message <MFi*tu...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
posted on 3 Jun 2005 by Theo Markettos
I would like to add:

It's gone down the same route as "viruses" (it would seem that the computer
world does not follow the classical rules).

--
...ElaineJ... Briallen Gifts/Cards catalogue at http://www.briallen.co.uk
...Kinetic... Corn Dollies, Cards, Coasters, Mousemats, Kids' Tshirts
..StrongArm.. Jones' Pages at http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/ejones
...RISC PC... Corwen, North Wales; Steam Traction;CMMGB&Yukon Volunteers.

Stefan Bellon

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 7:25:07 PM6/2/05
to
Chris de Cordova wrote:

> Someone else (n.g.b...@durham.ac.uk) quoted your post and HIS news
> client failed to snip the sig. Pluto on my machines snipped HIS sig
> OK.!!

That's not what happened. Every posting to csa.announce gets a
signature of one of the moderators added. Nick Boalch is (as the
signature actually says) backup moderator of csa.announce. So, his
signature got appended below Peter's. If Pluto encounters a posting
with multiple signature separators it only treats the last one as the
actual one and only snips that when replying. In that case it's the
user's responsibility to snip the wrongly quoted other signature(s).

But still, in order to produce what you posted in
<4d746301e...@ukgateway.net> you must have manually reformatted
Peter's signature anyway because that's not how Pluto quotes it by
default.

And your last posting just proves one of the points Peter made in his
guidelines: Guessing may be fun to the person who guesses, but is
misleading for others in case the guess is wrong.

--
Stefan Bellon

John-Mark Bell

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 8:31:05 PM6/2/05
to
In message <f7c8f1...@cae-coed.zetnet.co.uk>
Elaine Jones <ela...@cae-coed.zetnet.co.uk> wrote:

> Quoting from message <MFi*tu...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
> posted on 3 Jun 2005 by Theo Markettos
> I would like to add:
>
> > Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> > > In reponse to recent incidents and discussion on the comp.sys.acorn
> > > hierachy and other RISC OS mailing lists, I've put together a series of
> > > guidelines for correct posting to RISC OS forums.
> >
> > Can I just point out that the plural of 'forum' is 'fora'?
> > <ducks> :-)
>
> It's gone down the same route as "viruses" (it would seem that the computer
> world does not follow the classical rules).

As far as the OED is concerned, the correct plural is "viruses". For more
than I can be bothered to say on the subject, see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_of_virus

The first reference there is a good read, too.


John.

John Cartmell

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 9:12:24 PM6/2/05
to
In article <MFi*tu...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,

Except where the writer prefers to use forums. ;-))

Both are acceptable with fora finding most favour with the old and
latinate. Peter is still wet behind the ears (1) and his natural language
isn't even language (2) - never mind Latin! ;-)

(1) under 40
(2) C/C++

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

VinceH (real address)

unread,
Jun 3, 2005, 4:01:18 AM6/3/05
to
In article <4d74efbe...@sbellon.de>,

Stefan Bellon <sbe...@sbellon.de> wrote:
> Chris de Cordova wrote:

> > Someone else (n.g.b...@durham.ac.uk) quoted your post and HIS news
> > client failed to snip the sig. Pluto on my machines snipped HIS sig
> > OK.!!

[snip explanation of Pluto's behaviour]

> But still, in order to produce what you posted in
> <4d746301e...@ukgateway.net> you must have manually reformatted
> Peter's signature anyway because that's not how Pluto quotes it by
> default.

Actually, it depends on what is set in Preferences =>
Misc => Wordwrap Write News/Mail - a quick test reveals
that if this is set to 78 or more, the sig in question
will be quoted all neatly formatted.

Stuart Marshall

unread,
Jun 3, 2005, 5:28:07 AM6/3/05
to
mar...@gmail.com wrote:

> http://www.ietf.org.uk/usenet.html

It would be even more funny if it wasn't true!

Cheers,

Stuart.

beamendsltd

unread,
Jun 3, 2005, 5:32:22 AM6/3/05
to
In message <4d74a...@invalid.org.uk>
Tim Hill <1...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:

> In article <86e76974...@helvellyn.stevefryatt.org.uk>, Steve Fryatt
>

<snip>

> It looks like one opinion in response to another set of opinions whose
> link PN posted to c.s.a.announce. Here begins (continues) the unnecessary
> flame wars based on a lack of understanding of human nature . . . on many
> sides.
>
> I'm not certain the original posting contributed anything new, though its
> usefulness may shine in time to come. A shame it contained (IMVHO) items
> of personal rather than general taste. (e.g. who--apart from PN--really
> cares if car analogies are used? They help some people in their
> understanding and their ability to explain. Just don't mention the War
> ...)
>
> On a more relevant note a word about web searches: why isn't every RISC
> OS user recommending Patrick Mortara's RiscSearch which uses 19 search
> engines? http://www.riscsearch.de/


>
> It's fab. A search for 'netiquette' returned
> http://www.fau.edu/netiquette/net/
> http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
> as the first two hits which both contain some good stuff and could have
> saved Peter's time when he maybe has more important things to do. ;-)
>

Hmmmmm, just had a look at this to see what all the fuss was about.

As I expected, I'll be treating it with contempt it deserves, not
least as it fails to warn against:

Being extrememly rude.

Not allowing others to have differeng opinions.

Not deprecating the use of "creative" snipping.

While Chris's wording may have been a bit harsh, the sentiment I
can agree with.

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sa...@beamends-lrspares.co.uk
Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done
Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!!
Helping keep Land Rovers on and off the road to annoy the Lib Dems

Graham

unread,
Jun 3, 2005, 5:45:59 AM6/3/05
to
In message <MFi*tu...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Theo Markettos <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:


> Can I just point out that the plural of 'forum' is 'fora'?
> <ducks> :-)
>

Well I refer to them as 'message boards' as I have the impression that
'forum' is an americanism and we'll have none o'that here!
Cheers!

--
Graham
My Website - http://www.thedeathzone.free-online.co.uk

Peter Naulls

unread,
Jun 3, 2005, 6:08:16 AM6/3/05
to
In message <8f4b2c754d%beame...@btconnect.com>
beamendsltd <beame...@btconnect.com> wrote:

> In message <4d74a...@invalid.org.uk>
> Tim Hill <1...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:


> As I expected, I'll be treating it with contempt it deserves, not
> least as it fails to warn against:
>
> Being extrememly rude.
>
> Not allowing others to have differeng opinions.
>
> Not deprecating the use of "creative" snipping.

I'd agree, and there's no claim anywhere that it's either perfect nor
comprehensive, and it's certainly subject to revision. Instead of being
comptemptuous, how about some constructive additions, and writing some
sections which might come some of these points. Otherwise, you risk
being hypocritical.

At the same time, length is always an issue, and deciding what to
include or exclude can make the difference between it all being read or
not.

Chris de Cordova

unread,
Jun 3, 2005, 6:33:32 AM6/3/05
to
In article <4d74e635...@sbellon.de>, Stefan Bellon

<sbe...@sbellon.de> wrote:
> I just read Peter's page because of your posting. I didn't find
> *anything* offensive in Peter's guidelines. It's a very accurate
> and detailed explanation of what to do and what to omit when
> posting to RISC OS forums. Parts are more generic, parts are
> tailored to RISC OS and a few parts are specific to Peter's
> experience in the RISC OS forums. But there is nothing offensive on
> that page. If you find something offensive, then you should go and
> see someone, really!

I found nothing offensive until he got to the bits about writing his
name properly, using apostrophes, and choosing analogies that he
didn't care for.

--
__ __
/ \ | _ ' , _| _ / \ _ _ _| _ _
| |/\ |/ /| / \ / | /_\ | / \|/ / | / \\ // |
\__/ | |/| |_/ _/ \_/|/\_, \__/ \_/| \_/|/\_/ \/ \_/|

deco...@ukgateway.net

Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy.

Chris de Cordova

unread,
Jun 3, 2005, 6:29:15 AM6/3/05
to
In article <4d74efbe...@sbellon.de>, Stefan Bellon

<sbe...@sbellon.de> wrote:
> Chris de Cordova wrote:

> > Someone else (n.g.b...@durham.ac.uk) quoted your post and HIS
> > news client failed to snip the sig. Pluto on my machines snipped
> > HIS sig OK.!!

> That's not what happened. Every posting to csa.announce gets a
> signature of one of the moderators added. Nick Boalch is (as the
> signature actually says) backup moderator of csa.announce. So, his
> signature got appended below Peter's. If Pluto encounters a posting
> with multiple signature separators it only treats the last one as
> the actual one and only snips that when replying. In that case it's
> the user's responsibility to snip the wrongly quoted other
> signature(s).

OK - I porbably would have done, if I wasn't so annoyed at being
instructed to adhere to his use of punctuation and analogy guidelines.

> But still, in order to produce what you posted in
> <4d746301e...@ukgateway.net> you must have manually
> reformatted Peter's signature anyway because that's not how Pluto
> quotes it by default.

No, I didn't. Why would I do that?

> And your last posting just proves one of the points Peter made in
> his guidelines: Guessing may be fun to the person who guesses, but
> is misleading for others in case the guess is wrong.

Fine, but you have confirmed exactly what I surmised had happened.

Is comp.sys.acorn.misc really anything other than a forum for
miscellaneous acorn-related postings?

It might act as one or two people's private 'agony aunt', consultant-
type forum, but that isn't its sole purpose.

--
__ __
/ \ | _ ' , _| _ / \ _ _ _| _ _
| |/\ |/ /| / \ / | /_\ | / \|/ / | / \\ // |
\__/ | |/| |_/ _/ \_/|/\_, \__/ \_/| \_/|/\_/ \/ \_/|

deco...@ukgateway.net

The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

Chris de Cordova

unread,
Jun 3, 2005, 6:32:09 AM6/3/05
to
In article <4d751e3...@softrock.co.uk>,

VinceH (real address) <sp...@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
> Actually, it depends on what is set in Preferences =>
> Misc => Wordwrap Write News/Mail - a quick test reveals
> that if this is set to 78 or more, the sig in question
> will be quoted all neatly formatted.


It is set to 70.

I did this a long time ago after reading other people's moans and
recommendations. It is a real nuisance because I always have to
reformat quoted posts. Perhaps I should change it back to 80?


> [...]

I do not understand this bit of newsgroup etiquette (?)- please
explain.

--
__ __
/ \ | _ ' , _| _ / \ _ _ _| _ _
| |/\ |/ /| / \ / | /_\ | / \|/ / | / \\ // |
\__/ | |/| |_/ _/ \_/|/\_, \__/ \_/| \_/|/\_/ \/ \_/|

deco...@ukgateway.net

Dancing is a perpendicular expression of a horizontal desire.

Richard Travers

unread,
Jun 3, 2005, 6:24:37 AM6/3/05
to
> Chris wrote:
> > In article <slrnd9rv1q.e...@compsoc.dur.ac.uk>, Peter

> > Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> > > In reponse to recent incidents and discussion on the comp.sys.acorn
> > > hierachy and other RISC OS mailing lists, I've put together a
> > > series of guidelines for correct posting to RISC OS forums.

> >
> > > It can be found at http://www.riscos.info/posting/
> >
> >
> > Conceited little sh*t
> >

> Try this one.

> http://www.ietf.org.uk/usenet.html

Thank you.

Absolutely spot on!

--

Richard Travers
ri...@argonet.co.uk
Truro, Cornwall
01872 271125

Richard Travers

unread,
Jun 3, 2005, 6:41:19 AM6/3/05
to
In article <MFi*tu...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
Theo Markettos <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

To be fair, either version is acceptable.

However, it is a fair point that when anyone sets out to teach others
grammar it is a good idea to be ultra-careful to ensure that their own
grammar is impeccable.

On a rough scan through the guidelines I counted at least ten grammatical,
spelling and factual errors.

Peter Naulls

unread,
Jun 3, 2005, 6:52:25 AM6/3/05
to
In message <4d752da...@argonet.co.uk>
Richard Travers <ri...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:

Uh huh. And yet, I still don't have any offers of corrections, apart
from one URL correction, or even any examples in this post. As always,
I spell checked it and proofed it several times, but it's often
difficult to spot your own errors of this type.

Easy to be critical isn't it?

--
Peter Naulls - pe...@chocky.org | http://www.chocky.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unix Programs on RISC OS | http://www.riscos.info/unix/

Chris de Cordova

unread,
Jun 3, 2005, 7:10:05 AM6/3/05
to
In article <c6c62e75...@chocky.org>, Peter Naulls

<pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> Uh huh. And yet, I still don't have any offers of corrections,
> apart from one URL correction, or even any examples in this post.
> As always, I spell checked it and proofed it several times, but
> it's often difficult to spot your own errors of this type.

What's the point when there are other existing, carefully
thought-out, agreed sets of guidelines, to which you could have
posted the links?

Why reinvent the wheel?

and with corners?


(.. predicts .. car-related analogy ... he won't like this one either!)


--
__ __
/ \ | _ ' , _| _ / \ _ _ _| _ _
| |/\ |/ /| / \ / | /_\ | / \|/ / | / \\ // |
\__/ | |/| |_/ _/ \_/|/\_, \__/ \_/| \_/|/\_/ \/ \_/|

deco...@ukgateway.net

Ever wonder if illiterate people get the full effect of alphabet soup?

Chika

unread,
Jun 3, 2005, 7:21:38 AM6/3/05
to
In article <429f6...@x-privat.org>,

Rob Davison <nos...@thanks.invalid> wrote:
> mar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Chris wrote:
> >
> >>In article <slrnd9rv1q.e...@compsoc.dur.ac.uk>, Peter
> >>Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:

> >>>It can be found at http://www.riscos.info/posting/
> >>
> >>Conceited little sh*t
> >>
> > Try this one.
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org.uk/usenet.html

> LOL.

> Much better.

Made me laugh! The trouble is that the latter page is far closer to the
truth than the former, and neither is totally desirable.

--
//\ // Chika <zvl...@penfuarg.bet.hx. - ROT13>
// \// Hitting Googlespammers with hyper-hammers!

... What are you doing?!? The message is over,GO AWAY!

Chika

unread,
Jun 3, 2005, 7:11:59 AM6/3/05
to
In article <e52d9274...@chocky.org>, Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org>
wrote:
> In message <4d747252...@no.spam.here> Chika
> <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:

> > In article <e4746e74...@chocky.org>, Peter Naulls
> > <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> > > No, I don't agree - this is a contrived comparison from your dislike
> > > of Google.
> >
> > Now, how did I guess that this would rear its ugly head?

> Because it's far from clear what point you're making. And because
> you've made comments elsewhere which certainly suggest this.

No, it's because you have assumed things about me from my signature and a
few previous posts. That's your problem, not mine.

> > > The problem with browsers is a question of accessibility, security
> > > and perhaps of open source and closed standards - none of which
> > > really applies here.
> >
> > It does seem that, as in the other post, you have gone to
> > extraordinary lengths to misinterpret my words. Quite amazing, really.

> On the contrary, I replied to _precisely_ what you said. The onus is on
> you to be much clearer if you thought you meant something else.

I am as clear as I need to be. It seems that, every month or so, you end
up in an argument with somebody because you can't see the reason behind
what they are saying. I've explained my view of that in another thread, so
I won't go any further than to direct you to that thread (*info) and leave
it at that.

> > Well, don't say that you haven't been warned. Dismiss it if you like,
> > but companies have gone further than this where they believe that they
> > aren't being given a fair crack. So which is sillier; my calling you
> > out for this, or your attitude towards the availability of other
> > resources?

> I'm afraid this doesn't make any sense at all. I wish you'd stop
> wasting our time with these arguments.

Wasting "our" time? Have you taken on the entire group as your own? Are we
now to be sycophants here, only to be allowed to speak if we agree
implicitly with your every word? Be very careful about that. I only
stepped in because I felt CdC's comment about your posting guidance page
was a bit strong (in other words, it was somewhat of a defence), but don't
start trying to convince me that he was right.

--
//\ // Chika <zvl...@penfuarg.bet.hx. - ROT13>
// \// Hitting Googlespammers with hyper-hammers!

... CD-ROM : Compatible? Doesn't Run On Mine

Peter Naulls

unread,
Jun 3, 2005, 7:51:00 AM6/3/05
to
In message <4d7530494...@ukgateway.net>

Chris de Cordova <deco...@ukgateway.net> wrote:

> In article <c6c62e75...@chocky.org>, Peter Naulls
> <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> > Uh huh. And yet, I still don't have any offers of corrections,
> > apart from one URL correction, or even any examples in this post.
> > As always, I spell checked it and proofed it several times, but
> > it's often difficult to spot your own errors of this type.
>
> What's the point when there are other existing, carefully
> thought-out, agreed sets of guidelines, to which you could have
> posted the links?
>
> Why reinvent the wheel?

I don't know - but why are you asking me? I wasn't the one who made
critisism of apparently missing parts - although the document clearly
points to other references which do mention these very things.

--
Peter Naulls - pe...@chocky.org | http://www.chocky.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Naulls

unread,
Jun 3, 2005, 7:51:12 AM6/3/05