Posting Etiquette
William R. Mattil
http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb/nquote.html
----------------- included text follows ---------------------
Q3: Why shouldn't I quote the entire posting that I'm responding to?
A3: First, because it wastes people's time by making them download and
scroll through what amounts to two complete postings. Second, it wastes
network resources and disk space on news servers, most of which already
have a copy of the original posting. These problems are multiplied when
you quote an entire posting that in turn quotes an entire posting.
Many people (especially outside the United States) have to pay for their
Internet access by the minute and/or by the amount of data transferred.
It costs them money to download "unnecessary" material.
Q7: Why shouldn't I put my comments above the quoted material?
A7: Keep in mind that you're not writing just for the person whose posting
you're responding to. (If you are, you should be e-mailing your response
instead of posting it.) Thousands of other people may read what you write.
People who aren't directly involved in a discussion themselves, and who are
probably following several discussions at once, usually follow the logic more
easily when they can read the material in more-or-less chronological order.
When you have just a single question and response, and they're both short, and
the discussion doesn't develop any further, it really doesn't make that much
difference in practice. But it's impossible to predict in advance whether a
response will draw another response. So in general, it's best to put your
response below the text that you're responding to.
--------------------------- End Quote ----------------------------
Then there might be those whose misconfigured newreader(s) are set up
to top-post by default. This contributes to the failure to trim unnecessary
quoted material and complete lack of continuity that occur frequently
when there are multiple responses. There really is no reason to top-post.
Bill
--
William R. Mattil | Micro$ofts definition of 24x7 is 24 Hours
Sr. System Aministrator | out of 7 days
(972) 399-4106 |
Gerry Aitken
Thanks, Will, that needed saying! :)
Gerry
Edward
Express. I am a big fan of snipping however. Removing all the posts except
the one you're replying to, and perhaps editing that as well but indicating
that if you do.
Edward
"Gerry Aitken" <g.ai...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3D8F6B05...@ntlworld.com...
>
> Thanks, Will, that needed saying! :)
>
> Gerry
And for you bottom posters, I might be willing to change, just havent
figured out why. Ed
Ed - Supernews NNTP Operations
wrote:
Do a search on Usenet Netiquette or Usenet top posting and do a little
reading. I think you will change once you understand the reasoning.
Not to mention most of us usenet veterans consider top posting rude
and nothing screams "NEWBIE" like a top poster.
Ed
Edward
"Ed - Supernews NNTP Operations" <e...@supernews.net> wrote in message
news:3d8f85f6...@corp.supernews.com...
Stephen Paul
-Stephen Paul
"Ed - Supernews NNTP Operations" <e...@supernews.net> wrote in message
news:3d8f85f6...@corp.supernews.com...
> Not to mention most of us usenet veterans consider top posting rude
Bill Foley
:)
Clear, Dark, Steady Skies!
(And considerate neighbors!!!)
Cathy
--
.... __~o
.. \ -\<,
......(_)/(_)....................... http://www.VoodooInk.net
Paul Gustafson
posting still don't really make any sense to me.
They say bottom posting is more courteous (i.e., top posting is rude). But
which makes more sense -- bottom posting and forcing _every single_ reader
to scroll to the bottom of _every single_ post to follow the thread (and
really, does one need to be reminded of the relevant info over and over
again?), or top posting which allows those who can follow the thread to
quickly jump from post to post while still giving the person who gets lost
the ability to scroll down to find info from previous posts to reorient
themselves? Top posting seems to me, in practice, to be more courteous.
Some argue that bottom posters should be courteous enough to snip quoted
material such that one shouldn't have to scroll down to get to their
response. Not only doesn't that happen, but if everyone snipped
appropriately there would be no functional difference between posting
methods.
As far as looking like a newbie, well, if someone judges me based on whether
I top or bottom post rather than the content of my post, it says more about
them than about me.
Not that I have anything against bottom posting other than that it makes
reading a long thread unnecessarily tedious, and I would switch if I could
find a logical reason to do so.
Regards,
Paul Gustafson
"Ed - Supernews NNTP Operations" <e...@supernews.net> wrote
Edward
snipping! Imagine 25 previous posts included with the new material. It
made the whole thing impossible (nearly so) to follow.
I agree that top posting makes reading a new thread much quicker. Maybe
there are formats and readers that don't benefit from this approach?
Edward.
PS - I've seen rude, and top posting isn't rude.
"Paul Gustafson" <lase...@NOSPAMcox.net> wrote in message
news:FQMj9.20664$IL6.1...@news2.east.cox.net...
Gary Heath
the "very dated" material below.
But with today's technology and the term "waste of bandwidth" being an par
with "Far out, Groovy and Sock it to me" I have to wonder if we aren't just
serving an obsolete god.
I understand the "starving people in Europe" sentiment but once again should
the rest of the world reduce their pace and convenience to edit during
replies for the lowest common denominator?
I'm just not sure if we do that there is any import placed on others to
compete and or change to keep up.
Although my tone here is certainly a bit flip, I really am sincere about the
question.
Hitting reply and posting your message is very easy, keeps the flow for a
newcomer to the thread and makes a certain degree of sense with respect to
keep raising the bar global of performance.
Why all the editing and snipping to reply in these days of light-speed
modems?
I mean, it seems all the 1's and 0's we save here only end up being gobbled
up by the "see Billy Brite, the two headed baby, back stage with Brittney
Speers in some demonic _ _ _ act" groups, anyway.
Besides .... I still have 14 barrels of "saved bandwidth" stored along with
my Farm-aid, Save the Whales and Free East Palo Alto T-shirts.
Gary (not really as callous as I sound) Heath
"William R. Mattil" <w...@rrscfi1.irngtx.tel.gte.com> wrote in message
news:amnmis$rcl$1...@news.gte.com...
Nieman
"Paul Gustafson" <lase...@NOSPAMcox.net> wrote in message
news:FQMj9.20664$IL6.1...@news2.east.cox.net...
>
Rod Mollise
>
Whoooeeee..._what that girl said!_ :-)
Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto <http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html>
Cathy
Esmail Bonakdarian wrote:
> Cathy wrote:
>
>>It doesnt matter to me, I like it on top and bottom.
>>
>
> :-)
>
> you crack me up .. what would s.a.a. be like without you ...
>
> ---
> Esmail Bonakdarian - ebo...@myrealbox.com - http://www.cs.mercer.edu/bonak
> 32N 83W
Stephen Paul
news:amnmis$rcl$1...@news.gte.com...
I apologized for starting this in private. I guess I need to do it in public
now.
Sorry Bill. I think there's a lesson in this for both of us. ;-)
-Stephen (respectfully bottom posting to you) Paul
PS. Like I said, people do what they want. Whatta ya gonna do?
John J. Kasianowicz
"Gary Heath" wrote:
[snip]
> Why all the editing and snipping to reply in these days of light-speed
> modems?
[snip]
John J. Kasianowicz
Let's try:
Irrelevant text makes reading and answering someone's question(s) difficult.
JJK typoed:
Topprolmc
Gary, Heath, NO-Green-Eggs-N-Spamix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Not to be 'too' argumentative there was a time that I would have agreed with
> the "very dated" material below.
> But with today's technology and the term "waste of bandwidth" being an par
> with "Far out, Groovy and Sock it to me" I have to wonder if we aren't just
> serving an obsolete god.
Considering only 8% of the US has High speed connectivity, it is a big
deal when
you waste bandwidth.
> I understand the "starving people in Europe" sentiment but once again should
> the rest of the world reduce their pace and convenience to edit during
> replies for the lowest common denominator?
Considering that NNTP was designed behind text, yes. That's why HTML
posts are not allowed.
> I'm just not sure if we do that there is any import placed on others to
> compete and or change to keep up.
It has nothing to do with Competition...
> Although my tone here is certainly a bit flip, I really am sincere about the
> question.
> Hitting reply and posting your message is very easy, keeps the flow for a
> newcomer to the thread and makes a certain degree of sense with respect to
> keep raising the bar global of performance.
> Why all the editing and snipping to reply in these days of light-speed
> modems?
I only get 26.6, since my phone lines are over 35 years old, and see my
first comment.
Gary Heath
Man, some are making this just waaaaaay too difficult.
See it's pretty simple.
You click on the post, read the first lines until you see the little >'s,
and then post a reply.
I guess that's difficult for some???
Sorry for being flip (again) but for cryin out loud, do some of you guys
'really' have to scratch your left ear with your right hand to feel ...
scientific?<G>
Gary
"John J. Kasianowicz" <sur...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:amobun$ll8$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Edward
"Gary Heath" <gary-h@"NO-Green-Eggs-N-Spam""ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:amodtq$vll$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
Richard Jarnagin
"Stephen Paul" <dax...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sbOj9.240516$z91.10...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
I'm going to let the toilet paper hang away from the wall <g>
---
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: 9/19/02
RM Mentock
That says it all!!!
--
RM Mentock
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistant one -- A.E.
Gary Heath
And I did it all at well less than 26k.
I had to wait at least 10 microseconds longer and man am I feeling
underprivileged!!!
C'mon cable, snake your way up the hill to me.
In the meantime I think I'll get some "Save Gary's Micro Seconds" T-shirts
made up.
Gar-Aid???
"Edward" <brook...@fishmail.net> wrote in message
news:iDPj9.10808$XE1.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>They say bottom posting is more courteous (i.e., top posting is rude). But
>which makes more sense -- bottom posting and forcing _every single_ reader
>to scroll to the bottom of _every single_ post to follow the thread (and
>really, does one need to be reminded of the relevant info over and over
>again?), or top posting which allows those who can follow the thread to
>quickly jump from post to post while still giving the person who gets lost
>the ability to scroll down to find info from previous posts to reorient
>themselves? Top posting seems to me, in practice, to be more courteous.
If the message being responded to is long enough to require scrolling, it is
probably best dealt with by separating the individual sections being responded
to and handling them individually. In that case, bottom posting each section is
logical because it maintains the sense of dialog, which is really what a
threaded discussion is.
>Some argue that bottom posters should be courteous enough to snip quoted
>material such that one shouldn't have to scroll down to get to their
>response. Not only doesn't that happen, but if everyone snipped
>appropriately there would be no functional difference between posting
>methods.
Many posters edit the original message down to the minimum required to make the
response clear.
>As far as looking like a newbie, well, if someone judges me based on whether
>I top or bottom post rather than the content of my post, it says more about
>them than about me.
Although I generally prefer bottom posting, I think it would be silly to judge
you for preferring top posting. I do judge (silently) those who find it
necessary to post 200+ lines of mostly irrelevant previous discussion, however!
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
Sean Golden
Yeah, that's right. 1984. And I top-post because it makes more sense
to me in every meaningful, communicative way I can think of. I also
bottom post and insert my messages within a post when I want to.
I guess I'm just a newbie... Sorry.
Nothing screams "RUDE INSENSITIVE JERK" like calling someone a "newbie"
becuase they don't conform to some standard that was adopted 30 years
ago for arbitrary reasons that are now quoted like ritual dogma.
Most of us usenet veterans may consider lots of things rude, but I can
tell you stories of the days AOL came on line and to think of usenet
"veterans" calling ANYONE rude is irony in itself.
I'm sorry you are upset that the world crashed your little usenet party.
I personally am glad they joined.
-sdg
In article <3d8f85f6...@corp.supernews.com>,
Stephen Paul
news:amohpo$5os$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> "Stephen Paul" <dax...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:sbOj9.240516$z91.10...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
>
> I'm going to let the toilet paper hang away from the wall <g>
Good one. <vbg>
John J. Kasianowicz
soon as I could get out and back into the ng), you might have refrained from
sending a rude post.
Not that it matters, but I mistakenly hit send before I completed editing my
own post. Get a life.
"Gary Heath" spewed:
> [snip]
Stephen Paul
news:3D8FB9CE...@Starpower.net...
> only 8% of the US has High speed connectivity
INDEED! And when all my friends were investing in the dot bombs, I was
saying, "you guys are out of your fricking MINDS!, I live 40 miles northwest
of Boston, and I'm still on DIAL UP!!!", "Whose bringing all of this
e-commerce crap out to the consumers?". "There's no communications
infrastructure... WAKE UP!!"
They should have paid attention. What's worse is that some of my friends
went off to create start ups, to help improve the home communications market
by providing additional hardware and services on top of the communications
infrastructure. Sadly many of them are now out on their ear looking for
work. And it's getting worse, before it gets better.
> I only get 26.6, since my phone lines are over 35 years old, and see my
> first comment.
And here I am on dial up still, in 2002, and no sign of broadband before
2003. Too bad us computer weenies were so far ahead of the communications
industry. And look at them now. The bastard idiot CEO's of these com
companies deserve more punishment than I fear they will get. Buch of
incompetent f-ckers doing too little too late, while they lined their
pockets with the investors money.
I hate to say this, but IMO we need an act of congress to force these
companies to roll out high speed internet, nation wide, and then begin to
push for it world wide. I wonder if AT&T were still a monopoly under strict
FCC regulation, if things might have been different for the internet.
(Sorry, I guess you touched a nerve there. ;-))
Sooo, anyone been out observing lately, or bought any new equipment they'd
like to tell us about. ;-)
Gary Heath
I didn't meant to make you get so obviously upset.
I hope this fact unbunches your panties, if not .... NG's are real tough ...
better wear a cup.
On second thought .... maybe that would be redundant in your case.
Now .... that's 'almost' as rude as your pleasant post, but a whole lot
funnier and more than likely accurate!!! <BG>
"John J. Kasianowicz" <sur...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:amoqm5$e5h$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Thad Floryan
| [...]
| I guess I'm just a newbie... Sorry.
| Most of us usenet veterans may consider lots of things rude, but I can
| tell you stories of the days AOL came on line and to think of usenet
| "veterans" calling ANYONE rude is irony in itself.
"... days AOL came on line ..."? Yes, you are a newbie. :-) :-)
Long before AOL users were "personae non grata" there were Portal, GEnie,
and Netcom (in that order IIRC) whereas the Compuserve and BIX communities
were much more welcome since they demonstrated more 'Net maturity (as such
it were at the time). And there never were any complaints about The WELL.
FWIW, I've been using the 'Net since 1971 (it was called the ARPANET back
then) and I've also been telecommuting since 1966 (110 baud via TTY ASR33,
then 150 to 300 baud with a Datapoint 3300, then 1200 baud with a Datamedia
DT80, etc etc)
Per Erik Jorde
> I've been at this for a very long time, and the arguments against top
> posting still don't really make any sense to me.
It usually makes more sense to read what you are commenting on
first. Like this.
> Not that I have anything against bottom posting other than that it makes
> reading a long thread unnecessarily tedious, and I would switch if I could
> find a logical reason to do so.
There are hardly any reason to cite the entire tread in your reply, are
there?
Nine times out of ten, top-posters are simply using their newsreader's
default settings, rather than their own judgement. Most newbees do
that. In some particularly nasty newsreaders this results in a top
posting with the entire tread cited below.
pej
--
Per Erik Jorde
Boris Štromar
> They say bottom posting is more courteous (i.e., top posting is rude). But
> which makes more sense -- bottom posting and forcing _every single_ reader
> to scroll to the bottom of _every single_ post to follow the thread (and
You're not forcing anyone anything. You should include only a short quote
to which you're replying to and reply below. That way, everyone will know
what were you replying to.
> As far as looking like a newbie, well, if someone judges me based on whether
> I top or bottom post rather than the content of my post, it says more about
> them than about me.
I agree.
> Not that I have anything against bottom posting other than that it makes
> reading a long thread unnecessarily tedious, and I would switch if I could
> find a logical reason to do so.
It's not a matter only of top or bottom posting, but cleaning all the
"junk" behind you.
--
Boris Stromar : bstr...@grf.hr : AD Infinitum member : Zagreb, Croatia
Astro sketches, video & observing % http://astrobobo.tripod.com
Paul Schlyter
Paul Gustafson <lase...@NOSPAMcox.net> wrote:
>They say bottom posting is more courteous (i.e., top posting is rude). But
>which makes more sense -- bottom posting and forcing _every single_ reader
>to scroll to the bottom of _every single_ post to follow the thread (and
>really, does one need to be reminded of the relevant info over and over
>again?), or top posting which allows those who can follow the thread to
>quickly jump from post to post while still giving the person who gets lost
>the ability to scroll down to find info from previous posts to reorient
>themselves? Top posting seems to me, in practice, to be more courteous.
no matter if you top post or bottom post....
>Some argue that bottom posters should be courteous enough to snip quoted
>material such that one shouldn't have to scroll down to get to their
>response. Not only doesn't that happen,
>but if everyone snipped appropriately there would be no functional
>difference between posting methods.
argues for sloppy editing of quotes.....
>As far as looking like a newbie, well, if someone judges me based on
>whether I top or bottom post rather than the content of my post, it
>says more about them than about me.
think it's important to properly edit the quotes you're responding to.
This could be due to ignorance, or to arrogance -- make your pick.
Or perhaps you argue that you "don't have time" to properly edit the
quotes you're responding to -- well, if you're that short of time,
why are you out at Usenet at all?
>Not that I have anything against bottom posting other than that it makes
>reading a long thread unnecessarily tedious, and I would switch if I
>could find a logical reason to do so.
posting, you should properly edit and trim your quotes, and post
your response interleaved with a relevant paragraph of the quotes.
Don't argue about top posting or bottom posting -- instead agrue about
sloppy vs proper editing of quotes!
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at saaf dot se
WWW: http://hem.passagen.se/pausch/index.html
http://home.tiscali.se/~pausch/
Topp_rolmc
Stephen Paul wrote:
>
> "Topprolmc" <topp...@Starpower.net> wrote in message
> news:3D8FB9CE...@Starpower.net...
>
>
> I hate to say this, but IMO we need an act of congress to force these
> companies to roll out high speed internet, nation wide, and then begin to
> push for it world wide. I wonder if AT&T were still a monopoly under strict
> FCC regulation, if things might have been different for the internet.
Congress gave the Telecoms a tax break to upgrade rural service, but the
cost of a CO, every 5 miles
makes DSL and ISDN in rural America cost prohibitive. I use dial up,
satellite down, but will not pay
for 2 way Satellite. NNTP only runs well on Dail up, FTP only works on
dial up. Http is all I can use
the satellite for...
>
> (Sorry, I guess you touched a nerve there. ;-))
I fought Bell Atlantic thru the BBB and the State of VA, since my
service was so crappy when
I moved here. ;->
>
> Sooo, anyone been out observing lately, or bought any new equipment they'd
> like to tell us about. ;-)
I have been testing my Apex 90 and Kodak DC290 on venus and the
moon.... Pics will show up
eventually...
Paul Gustafson
> Responding without editing the quotes you're responding to is rude,
> no matter if you top post or bottom post....
Agreed. I find it annoying to scroll down through an entire thread's worth
of quoted text to find a single word response.
> >but if everyone snipped appropriately there would be no functional
> >difference between posting methods.
>
> True -- which means those who argues for top posting also actually
> argues for sloppy editing of quotes.....
One does not necessarily follow the other. OTOH, someone who is
inconsiderate enough to not edit their quotes _and_ bottom posts at the same
time wastes everyone's time as well as bandwidth, while one who does not
edit his quotes and top posts wastes only bandwidth.
> Both matters. If you insist on top posting, you also say you don't
> think it's important to properly edit the quotes you're responding to.
Not true at all -- your bias has overridden your logic. Many top posters
edit their quotes, and many bottom posters do not, as a simple perusal of
saa will clearly demonstrate.
> This could be due to ignorance, or to arrogance -- make your pick.
Pot -- kettle -- black? ;-) Again, your personal bias. If this is a multiple
choice question, I choose "none of the above."
It is likely that people who don't trim their quotes are inexperienced,
inconsiderate, or inahurry. That is a separate issue. Still, if a poster
quotes an entire thread, where would you rather see his reply, at the top
where you can simply go on to the next message, or at the bottom where you
must scroll through the entire post to find his reply? The answer seems
obvious to me.
> Or perhaps you argue that you "don't have time" to properly edit the
> quotes you're responding to -- well, if you're that short of time,
> why are you out at Usenet at all?
Arrogance or intolerance? Take your pick. ;-)
Personally, I edit my quotes, so I make no such argument.
> >Not that I have anything against bottom posting other than that it makes
> >reading a long thread unnecessarily tedious, and I would switch if I
> >could find a logical reason to do so.
>
> You already have a logical reason: instead of top posting or bottom
> posting, you should properly edit and trim your quotes, and post
> your response interleaved with a relevant paragraph of the quotes.
That only applies to posts which address more than one point. Many posts are
a single response to a single point so such interleaving is impossible
(unless you fail to snip irrelevant text).
> Don't argue about top posting or bottom posting -- instead agrue about
> sloppy vs proper editing of quotes!
Agreed, improper editing of quotes is evil, nobody will argue with that.
Still no logical reason to prefer bottom posting over top posting (unless
interleaving).
Paul Gustafson
Cathy
>
> Stephen Paul wrote:
>
>
>>Sooo, anyone been out observing lately, or bought any new equipment they'd
>>like to tell us about. ;-)
>>
>
> I have been testing my Apex 90 and Kodak DC290 on venus and the
> moon.... Pics will show up
> eventually...
>
I have a DC 280, they are nice cameras.
Mars is popping up over the Atlantic early mornings..4:45 am est or so.
Went looking for an orange Nova in Sag the other night at Stafford
Forge, NJ- I never found it.
Sometime during mid-October, a 20" Obsession may be rolling into the
driveway for a week or two of use.
Stephen Paul
news:j_Sj9.118954$Yb1.1...@sea-read.news.verio.net...
> Datamedia DT80
After 8 years as a bench tech troubleshooting PC boards, I had my first job
in engineering (as a technician) at Datamedia in Nashua, NH as part of a
team of engineers that developed "Wintel" PC/LAN Workstations in the late
80's early 90's. I started my career in power supplies at Honeywell
Information Systems fresh out of DeVry Tech Woodbridge, NJ in 1980, I then
moved into troubleshooting the first of the microprocessor based
"intelligent" terminals, and then onward to PC motherboards at other
companies later on.
I am indebted to the folks who worked at Datamedia and encouraged me to go
back to school to pursue Computer Science, which I did part time nights and
then full time days after a lay-off.
You folks who went to college right out of high school and got your degree
should know how good you had it. Going to college in your 30's, and having
physics professors bending your mind, when its grown stiff, and having to
learn calculus at the same time was a bitch, especially when your interest
is in computers, and the classical sciences are completely unrelated to your
pursuits. I'm glad to be through all of that, and now able to enjoy physics
as part of the hobby, rather than under the pressure cooker they put me in
back then.
Anyway, I'm rambling.
-Stephen Paul
William R. Mattil
Edward <brook...@fishmail.net> wrote:
>I was reading a Yahoo Group recently and someone replied to a digest without
>snipping! Imagine 25 previous posts included with the new material. It
>made the whole thing impossible (nearly so) to follow.
>I agree that top posting makes reading a new thread much quicker. Maybe
>there are formats and readers that don't benefit from this approach?
>Edward.
>
>PS - I've seen rude, and top posting isn't rude.
Well, Rude behavior would be to continually deviate from the normal
expected behavior in a group just because you refuse to conform.
You can discuss it all you like but the acceptable method has
been mentioned and a link to the document was posted so that the
original could be read at your leisure. I think, and just reading the
posts here on s.a.a. would tend to indicate that I may be correct is
that top posting encourages lazyness in trimming superfluous text.
Furthermore, your top posted article makes it extremely difficult
to follow the thread. Lets face it, what is really happening here is
that you (and others) don't want to follow the rules of acceptable
behavior. That does fit the definition of rude.
Bill
--
William R. Mattil | If Con is the opposite of Pro .... Then
Sr. System Aministrator | is Congress the opposite of Progress ? -
(972) 399-4106 | Gallagher
Mark
>FWIW, I've been using the 'Net since 1971 (it was called the ARPANET back
>then) and I've also been telecommuting since 1966 (110 baud via TTY ASR33,
>then 150 to 300 baud with a Datapoint 3300, then 1200 baud with a Datamedia
>DT80, etc etc)
Guess I am a true newbie - my first modem was a 300 baud Gandalf :)
And I thought it was great. Not as fast as my screaming 9600 baud
green screen at work though :)
I mention stuff like this at work and people doen't even know what I
mean by greeen screen. Or greenbar paper, RS232, TTL, etc.
Edward
interest all the post on this topic. Words like acceptable, normal, and
expected are subjective and vary from user to user. My only intention is to
adopt a practice which allows for good communication. I intend to use the
style which is most useful to readers of usenet, and I will watch this
thread with interest. Arguements about past practices are historicly
interesting but should not preclude adaptive response to new realities. I
appreciate your views on this matter. I'd like to hear how top posting
interferes with your enjoyment of this forum. For what its worth, I think
that prpoer snipping is a far more important matter, allowing the new
material to be found much more readily. Edward.
"William R. Mattil" <w...@rrscfi1.irngtx.tel.gte.com> wrote in message
news:ampqp6$so2$1...@news.gte.com...
Ed - Supernews NNTP Operations
<seang...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Okay, so I've been a Usenet participant since, let's seee, was it 1984?
>Yeah, that's right. 1984. And I top-post because it makes more sense
>to me in every meaningful, communicative way I can think of. I also
>bottom post and insert my messages within a post when I want to.
And since you've been doing it so long this way you are reluctant to
change. I can understand that.
>I guess I'm just a newbie... Sorry.
You've been around long enough not to be considered a newbie however
it seems no one provided you with any posting guidance early on.
>Nothing screams "RUDE INSENSITIVE JERK" like calling someone a "newbie"
>becuase they don't conform to some standard that was adopted 30 years
>ago for arbitrary reasons that are now quoted like ritual dogma.
I prefer BOFH. By that reasoning the Declaration of Independance is
really out of date then aye? Why not take a stroll through
alt.binaries.news-server-comparion and see how many folks that do
usenet for a living top post? I can't think of a single usenet admin
that does.
<snip>.
>I'm sorry you are upset that the world crashed your little usenet party.
>I personally am glad they joined.
>
>-sdg
Usenet would be a better place without some of the trolls that crashed
our little usenet party. I take it you enjoy the "Moon Hoax" and
"Planet-X" trolling that takes place in this group. I for one could do
without them. Sigh...
Ed
Richard Harding
Well there goes the puritanical astronomy neighborhood!!
Richard Harding
This is the first important thing said on this thread (with the
exception of Cathy's slightly "blue" comment). Yes, the paper should
always be hung "away from the wall". If you don't, you are a toilet
"newbie.
Richard
Edward
"Cathy" <cat...@nospamworldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3D8F965E...@nospamworldnet.att.net...
> It doesnt matter to me, I like it on top and bottom.
>
>
>
>
>
Stephen Paul
> Hello William, It is not my intention to offend, and I am reading with
> interest all the post on this topic. Words like acceptable, normal, and
> expected are subjective and vary from user to user. My only intention is
to
> adopt a practice which allows for good communication. I intend to use
the
> style which is most useful to readers of usenet, and I will watch this
> thread with interest. Arguements about past practices are historicly
> interesting but should not preclude adaptive response to new realities. I
> appreciate your views on this matter. I'd like to hear how top posting
> interferes with your enjoyment of this forum. For what its worth, I think
> that prpoer snipping is a far more important matter, allowing the new
> material to be found much more readily. Edward.
I suggest you re-read what Bill posted. It pretty much covers the "logical"
reasoning, inbcluding his own comments on accepting deviations of a sort..
No one can deny that when some people post at the bottom , and others post
topside while retaining the bottom comments from the previous response AND
the post to which the bottom poster responded, or any combinaction thereof,
the thread becomes impossible to follow.
Bottom posting, as defined in what Bill posted in this thread, covers all of
those possibilities. It is logical (should you chose to follow logic).
I only objected because in the beginning, (and Bill and I worked this out
between us) there was just a _tad_ too much attitude going around on the
subject.
I'm out of here (this thread that is).
-Stephen Paul
William R. Mattil
Edward <brook...@fishmail.net> wrote:
>Hello William, It is not my intention to offend, and I am reading with
>interest all the post on this topic. Words like acceptable, normal, and
>expected are subjective and vary from user to user.
While on the surface your last statement is true in the context of
USENET it doesn't apply. USENET is a form of "ordered" society
(how ordered could very well be discussed :^) ) and because of
the scope of the organization, world wide, certain behavior patterns
developed to better facilitate the transmission of ideas. Our
agreement of the rules of this society is not required. But our
compliance benefits everyone.
> My only intention is to
>adopt a practice which allows for good communication. I intend to use the
>style which is most useful to readers of usenet, and I will watch this
>thread with interest.
Given the attitudes of many that use s.a.a. then you will top post. At
one time I thought that it was simply because those persons were ill
informed. But from the responses I have recieved it is becoming apparent
that most simply use inferior mechanisms to post and refuse to go to
any real effort to adhere to the etiquette of USENET. Some of this is
an "I can do whatever the f*&^% I want" attitude and others have the
"my way is more gooder" kind of thing. So I would strongly urge you
to hang out on some of the "more enlightened" groups that cater to
professionals and see how they handle things. You would, I am certain,
develop a different view. :^)
Remember that s.a.a. is a subset of USENET. Not vice versa.
> Arguements about past practices are historicly
>interesting but should not preclude adaptive response to new realities. I
>appreciate your views on this matter.
It would seem that your "new realities" might refer to Microsoft, Netscape
and other newsreaders ? What I think that you need to understand is that
the scope of USENET is an very large homogeneous entity that is comprised
of many descrete types of archetectures. Not everyone uses the ubiquious
Dell or Compaq running Windows or some flavor thereof. It would be better
to imagine it as a text based (which it is) engine that is fed from many
different platforms by users having different type(s) of access. Not
everyone has DSL or a T1 or (insert your type of access here). I would
strongly suggest that you try using a dedicated Newsreader and see what
I mean. Many, many participants on USENET are *not* using Microsoft
products and have no access to MS Outlook. Good Newsreaders don't have
to be gui based either. Personally I use trn. Getting to the bottom of
a posting requires me to use a single key. The spacebar. No mouse clicking
scrolling or other nonsense. So many will whine about how much work it
is to do so I can't relate. Good Newsreaders do exist for MS products
too. And they *can* be configured to exist within the framework of
USENET policies as well.
> I'd like to hear how top posting
>interferes with your enjoyment of this forum.
First of all it *is* not the accepted way of doing things. Secondly
it assists those persons who are incredibly lazy to not trim their
postings and this contributes signicantly to the *drek* on the servers
that have to handle this. Thirdly, when mulitple parties respond which
is often the case, top posting causes missattirbution, and confuses things
so that someone who is lurking (reading but not participating) is
hopelessly lost. Fourthly <g>, countless times a posting will cover
many points. Or at least more than one. Each counterpoint if placed
below the original point preserves continuity. By the time three or
four iterations of point and counter-point are expressed it is still
very readable.
> For what its worth, I think
>that prpoer snipping is a far more important matter, allowing the new
>material to be found much more readily. Edward.
True enough.... but you chose not to snip this one.... curious isn't it ?
Hopefully this was just a mistake instead of a troll ?......
Bill
[huge snip]
--
William R. Mattil | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three
Sr. System Aministrator | wolves and a sheep voting on what's for
(972) 399-4106 | dinner. Unknown
William R. Mattil
All that and you bottom post too ! A truely enlightened soul. Old perhaps
as am I, but enlightened. I remember 110 baud connections and print
terminals as well. Wrote plenty of code on the old green bar paper too.
Fortran and APL ..... sheesh, where's my cane and seeing eye dog.
Regards
Bill
--
William R. Mattil | Only two things are infinite, the universe
Sr. System Aministrator | and human stupidity and I'm not sure about
(972) 399-4106 | the former -- Albert Einstein
Gerry Aitken
Gerry
Gerry Aitken
posts with 'O/T'!
"William R. Mattil" wrote:
>
> Since this seems to come up from time to time
>
> http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb/nquote.html
>
> ----------------- included text follows ---------------------
> Q3: Why shouldn't I quote the entire posting that I'm responding to?
>
> A3: First, because it wastes people's time by making them download and
> scroll through what amounts to two complete postings. Second, it wastes
> network resources and disk space on news servers, most of which already
> have a copy of the original posting. These problems are multiplied when
> you quote an entire posting that in turn quotes an entire posting.
>
> Many people (especially outside the United States) have to pay for their
> Internet access by the minute and/or by the amount of data transferred.
> It costs them money to download "unnecessary" material.
>
> Q7: Why shouldn't I put my comments above the quoted material?
>
> A7: Keep in mind that you're not writing just for the person whose posting
> you're responding to. (If you are, you should be e-mailing your response
> instead of posting it.) Thousands of other people may read what you write.
> People who aren't directly involved in a discussion themselves, and who are
> probably following several discussions at once, usually follow the logic more
> easily when they can read the material in more-or-less chronological order.
>
> When you have just a single question and response, and they're both short, and
> the discussion doesn't develop any further, it really doesn't make that much
> difference in practice. But it's impossible to predict in advance whether a
> response will draw another response. So in general, it's best to put your
> response below the text that you're responding to.
> --------------------------- End Quote ----------------------------
>
> Then there might be those whose misconfigured newreader(s) are set up
> to top-post by default. This contributes to the failure to trim unnecessary
> quoted material and complete lack of continuity that occur frequently
> when there are multiple responses. There really is no reason to top-post.
>
> Bill
> --
>
> William R. Mattil | Micro$ofts definition of 24x7 is 24 Hours
> Sr. System Aministrator | out of 7 days
> (972) 399-4106 |
Edward
>USENET is a form of "ordered" society
> (how ordered could very well be discussed :^) ) and because of
> the scope of the organization, world wide, certain behavior patterns
> developed to better facilitate the transmission of ideas. Our
> agreement of the rules of this society is not required. But our
> compliance benefits everyone.
Your point is well taken.
>...it is becoming apparent
> that most simply use inferior mechanisms to post and refuse to go to
> any real effort to adhere to the etiquette of USENET. Some of this is
> an "I can do whatever the f*&^% I want" attitude and others have the
> "my way is more gooder" kind of thing. .
I think there's less of that going on and more a rethinking of
functionality.
> True enough.... but you chose not to snip this one.... curious isn't it ?
> Hopefully this was just a mistake instead of a troll ?......
I chose to snip previous postings, but to leave your post intact. Is this
editorial decision inappropriate?
Posting etiquette is not limited to form alone. You have called me newbie,
rude, etc.; your inuendo reguarding trolling was uncalled for. I have
listened to your input, but in the arena of civility you have come up short.
Edward
Paul Schlyter
Paul Gustafson <lase...@NOSPAMcox.net> wrote:
>"Paul Schlyter" <pau...@saaf.se> wrote:
>
>> Responding without editing the quotes you're responding to is rude,
>> no matter if you top post or bottom post....
>
>Agreed. I find it annoying to scroll down through an entire thread's worth
>of quoted text to find a single word response.
quotes.
>>>but if everyone snipped appropriately there would be no functional
>>>difference between posting methods.
>>
>> True -- which means those who argues for top posting also actually
>> argues for sloppy editing of quotes.....
>
>One does not necessarily follow the other. OTOH, someone who is
>inconsiderate enough to not edit their quotes _and_ bottom posts
>at the same time wastes everyone's time as well as bandwidth, while
>one who does not edit his quotes and top posts wastes only bandwidth.
the beginning? He might have interspersed additional comments
further down, and I won't know unless I browse the entire post.
>> Both matters. If you insist on top posting, you also say you don't
>> think it's important to properly edit the quotes you're responding to.
>
>Not true at all -- your bias has overridden your logic.
# but if everyone snipped appropriately there would be no functional
# difference between posting methods.
which implies that if people edit their quotes properly, there's no
need to argue for top posting. Now you choose to argue for top
posting instead of arguing for proper editing and trimming of quotes,
and you make this priority.
>Many top posters edit their quotes, and many bottom posters do not,
>as a simple perusal of saa will clearly demonstrate.
don't, just like many bottom posters edit their quotes and many don't.
>> This could be due to ignorance, or to arrogance -- make your pick.
>
>Pot -- kettle -- black? ;-) Again, your personal bias. If this is a multiple
>choice question, I choose "none of the above."
>
>It is likely that people who don't trim their quotes are inexperienced,
>inconsiderate, or inahurry. That is a separate issue. Still, if a poster
>quotes an entire thread, where would you rather see his reply, at the top
>where you can simply go on to the next message, or at the bottom where you
>must scroll through the entire post to find his reply? The answer seems
>obvious to me.
I don't of course. In real life, I tend to ignore post where the
quotes are not properly edited and trimmed (unless the entire quote
is quite short).
>> You already have a logical reason: instead of top posting or bottom
>> posting, you should properly edit and trim your quotes, and post
>> your response interleaved with a relevant paragraph of the quotes.
>
>That only applies to posts which address more than one point. Many posts are
>a single response to a single point so such interleaving is impossible
>(unless you fail to snip irrelevant text).
disagree", then you should edit out everything from the quote, except
those few lines which illuminates the point you agree or disagree on.
And then it again gets irrelevant whether the response appear above,
or below, the quote.
>> Don't argue about top posting or bottom posting -- instead agrue about
>> sloppy vs proper editing of quotes!
>
>Agreed, improper editing of quotes is evil, nobody will argue with that.
>
>Still no logical reason to prefer bottom posting over top posting (unless
>interleaving).
be robbed by someone using a knife or a gun, instead of arguing against
the robberies? (yes, this example was a little bit extreme, but I
hope it clarifies the point I want to make).
Gary Heath
"Richard Harding" <rhar...@blackandmcdonald.com> wrote
Dave Bell
Or, you advertise that you don't have a cat in the house!
Dave
SimonP pool.co.uk>
> Your post was off topic, so in future will you kindly prefix off topic
> posts with 'O/T'!
<snipppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppped>
LOL F'ing superb, Garry!
I've got the pipe anyone want to stuff that in it so I can smoke it?
Now if everyone will settle down.
Cathy: I would like to hear more about your preferences
Richard: It's not a toilet newbie thing, I've been trying to train my wife
for 13 years but she doesn't understand my needs..;-(
--
Reduce the SNR: Save the bandwidth:
Ignore the trolls Snip the shit.
And clear, dark, steady skies to all of you, whatever equipment you
use.
Simon
51:31N 0:38W
http://www.maidenhead.astronomical.society.care4free.net/
http://www.popastro.com/home.htm
Bill Foley
roll?
>always be hung "away from the wall". If you don't, you are a toilet
>"newbie.
roll?
Please note that I posted top AND bottom, not to show etiquette, but to be sure
at least part of the post did NOT show etiquette. I am beginning to believe
that Shawn at least DID have better stuff to rant about than where the post
goes. Ask not where the post goes, it goes up your ass (Oh, wait, that was
supposed to be about BELLS, wasn't it))
:-)
Clear, Dark, Steady Skies!
(And considerate neighbors!!!)
Sean Golden
In article <3d90939b...@corp.supernews.com>,
e...@supernews.net (Ed - Supernews NNTP Operations) wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 04:14:19 GMT, Sean Golden
> <seang...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Okay, so I've been a Usenet participant since, let's seee, was it 1984?
> >Yeah, that's right. 1984. And I top-post because it makes more sense
> >to me in every meaningful, communicative way I can think of. I also
> >bottom post and insert my messages within a post when I want to.
>
> And since you've been doing it so long this way you are reluctant to
> change. I can understand that.
No, I've been around (LIFE, not Usenet) long enough to know the
difference between arbitrary reliance on rigid guidelines and good solid
common sense. As Emerson put it "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin
of little minds."
>
> >I guess I'm just a newbie... Sorry.
>
> You've been around long enough not to be considered a newbie however
> it seems no one provided you with any posting guidance early on.
Oh, believe me I have recieved plenty of upbraids from sanctimonious
holier-than-thou self appointed netiquette policemen. I consider their
actions to be far more rude than my "offenses" over the years, primarily
top-posting and changing the names of threads when the subject matter
shifted. Here is a typical post:
"HEY NEWBIE!! Don't you know that top-posting is rude! And by the way,
you're not supposed to change the name of a thread, you moron, you
should start a new thread!"
The amazing thing is the complete lack of understanding of the
netiquette policeman (it was always a man) that they had violated pretty
much every rule of social etiquette in their zealous pursuit of
enforcing net etiquette.
>
> >Nothing screams "RUDE INSENSITIVE JERK" like calling someone a "newbie"
> >becuase they don't conform to some standard that was adopted 30 years
> >ago for arbitrary reasons that are now quoted like ritual dogma.
>
> I prefer BOFH. By that reasoning the Declaration of Independance is
> really out of date then aye? Why not take a stroll through
> alt.binaries.news-server-comparion and see how many folks that do
> usenet for a living top post? I can't think of a single usenet admin
> that does.
Two things:
1. The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document and as such
it doesn't matter whether it is "out of date" or not. This comment
would have made sense had you said "US Constitution" perhaps.
2. The Declaration of Independence is derived from hundreds of years of
philosophical thought and hard-won experience in the human condition.
The "rules" of Usenet etiquette were derived by a group of
self-appointed computer enthusiasts who, especially at that time, were
world renowned (and rightly so) for their lack of communication skills
and poor user interfaces. Hardly a group I would look to for rules of
social interaction.
>
> <snip>.
>
> >I'm sorry you are upset that the world crashed your little usenet party.
> >I personally am glad they joined.
> >
> >-sdg
>
> Usenet would be a better place without some of the trolls that crashed
> our little usenet party. I take it you enjoy the "Moon Hoax" and
> "Planet-X" trolling that takes place in this group. I for one could do
> without them. Sigh...
The world would be a better place without lots of people, but I have
always found the "cure" for that to be worse than the disease. In order
to keep out the trolls, too many good people would be kept out too. I
prefer accepting the bad with the good when it comes to humanity,
because I believe overall the good outweighs the bad. For every
annoying Usenet Troll "let in" hundreds of interesting and vibrant
people have opened up the community and made it a much better place
overall.
>
> Ed
>
You and I will simply have to disagree on this. I don't conform to your
idea of Usenet "etiquette" because it is too restrictive, too outdated
and too arbitrary. You can live by whatever rules you like, that's fine
with me. But if you look down your nose at people because they top
post, then you are reducing your own experience, not mine.
-sdg
Sean Golden
th...@thadlabs.com (Thad Floryan) wrote:
> Sean Golden <seang...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> | [...]
> | I guess I'm just a newbie... Sorry.
> | [...]
> | Most of us usenet veterans may consider lots of things rude, but I can
> | tell you stories of the days AOL came on line and to think of usenet
> | "veterans" calling ANYONE rude is irony in itself.
>
> "... days AOL came on line ..."? Yes, you are a newbie. :-) :-)
>
> Long before AOL users were "personae non grata" there were Portal, GEnie,
> and Netcom (in that order IIRC) whereas the Compuserve and BIX communities
> were much more welcome since they demonstrated more 'Net maturity (as such
> it were at the time). And there never were any complaints about The WELL.
>
> FWIW, I've been using the 'Net since 1971 (it was called the ARPANET back
> then) and I've also been telecommuting since 1966 (110 baud via TTY ASR33,
> then 150 to 300 baud with a Datapoint 3300, then 1200 baud with a Datamedia
> DT80, etc etc)
I'll bottom post this time just to be different.
I came to Usenet through Compuserve. I remember not only the AOL
debacle, but also the GEnie and Prodigy attacks. That's about as far
back as I go. (My Compuserve Account was opened in August of '84, I
fondly remember the Micronetworked Apple User Group and Neil Shapiro,
the first sysop I ever conversed with... I still remember my account
number...)
And I will tell you what, the vitriol, anger and downright hostility
expressed by Usenet "veterans" towards each of those communities was so
inexcusable that I have absolutely no time or interest in listening to
lectures about behavior from anyone who claims to be a "usenet veteran."
In my experience in many different social groups, organizations and
communities, I don't believe I have ever seen such arrogance,
intolerance and downright uncivility on display as I saw in those days.
I remember times when the entire thread of responses to a post from a
Prodigy person was a series of attacks on that person with not one
single person bothering to even try to answer the person's question. It
was a sad time in the history of USENet if you want my opinion, if that
is what some people consider to be the "good old days" than I must say
that I simply don't share that opinion.
And again, sanctimonious lectures about "etiquette" from that crowd
simply boil my butter. A good host does not lecture the guests. And a
bad host cannot claim any superiority in manners. If you want "logic"
try that for size.
-sdg
John J. Kasianowicz
"Gary Heath" wrote:
> Whoa there big fella.
[rude dreck snipped]
John J. Kasianowicz
"Cathy" wrote:
[snip]
Gary Heath
"John J. Kasianowicz" <sur...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:amr93b$i6e$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Cathy
A friend is making plans to visit and may bring it.
Largest Ive looked through has been a homemade 6" Newt.
Don
> You can discuss it all you like but the acceptable method has
> been mentioned and a link to the document was posted so that the
> original could be read at your leisure. I think, and just reading the
> posts here on s.a.a. would tend to indicate that I may be correct is
> that top posting encourages lazyness in trimming superfluous text.
The same occurs for bottom posting as well. How many posts have I
checked this AM (form alleged persons who are aware of netiquette) where
they have responded with a 1 liner but have left every single line of
every single post above.
> Furthermore, your top posted article makes it extremely difficult
> to follow the thread.
IMO another fallacy in support of bottom posting. There should be no
difference whether top or bottom posted.
Don
Don
>
> If the message being responded to is long enough to require scrolling, it is
> probably best dealt with by separating the individual sections being responded
> to and handling them individually. In that case, bottom posting each section is
> logical because it maintains the sense of dialog, which is really what a
> threaded discussion is.
Agreed. But this is the only time that it is warranted IMO.
Don
Thad Floryan
| I prefer BOFH. By that reasoning the Declaration of Independance is
OK, ya got me. What's "BOFH"?
Thad Floryan
| But, doesn't that make it easier for cats and children to run the paper off the
| roll?
| > Yes, the paper should
| >always be hung "away from the wall". If you don't, you are a toilet
| >"newbie.
| But, doesn't that make it easier for cats and children to run the paper off
| the roll?
But at least it'll end up on the floor and be rewindable/reusable, contrasted
to the other method where the end will go flying up into the air and flop into
the bowl where it'll wick and saturate the entire roll thus ruining it.
Ed - Supernews NNTP Operations
wrote:
Bastard operator from hell. Operator=sys admin
Ed
Ed - Supernews NNTP Operations
<seang...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip>
>Two things:
>
>1. The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document and as such
>it doesn't matter whether it is "out of date" or not.
Neither are the usenet netiquette guides.
>This comment
>would have made sense had you said "US Constitution" perhaps.
In what way?
>2. The Declaration of Independence is derived from hundreds of years of
>philosophical thought and hard-won experience in the human condition.
>The "rules" of Usenet etiquette were derived by a group of
>self-appointed computer enthusiasts who, especially at that time, were
>world renowned (and rightly so) for their lack of communication skills
>and poor user interfaces. Hardly a group I would look to for rules of
>social interaction.
What does social interaction have to do with posting
guidelines/etiquette?
<snip>
>> Usenet would be a better place without some of the trolls that crashed
>> our little usenet party. I take it you enjoy the "Moon Hoax" and
>> "Planet-X" trolling that takes place in this group. I for one could do
>> without them. Sigh...
>
>The world would be a better place without lots of people, but I have
>always found the "cure" for that to be worse than the disease. In order
>to keep out the trolls, too many good people would be kept out too. I
>prefer accepting the bad with the good when it comes to humanity,
>because I believe overall the good outweighs the bad.
You think humanity is better off having folks like Hitler and Bin
Laden and Hussein around? Wake up and smell the coffee.
>For every
>annoying Usenet Troll "let in" hundreds of interesting and vibrant
>people have opened up the community and made it a much better place
>overall.
The interesting and vibrant people can stay. I only have a beef with
the trolls.
>You and I will simply have to disagree on this.
Yup.
>I don't conform to your
>idea of Usenet "etiquette" because it is too restrictive, too outdated
>and too arbitrary. You can live by whatever rules you like, that's fine
>with me. But if you look down your nose at people because they top
>post, then you are reducing your own experience, not mine.
This is what you don't seem to understand. By not adhering to
netiquette guidelines you are reducing my experience as well as others
who read your posts.
Ed
P.S. It was much more pleasant to read your followup and respond to it
since for the most part you used the bottom posting method this time.
For me this makes more sense.
Chris Warwick
that it distracts from the intended purpose of the group, but on this
occassion I just have to say that boy, do you have your head up your arse.
e...@supernews.net (Ed - Supernews NNTP Operations) wrote in
news:3d91530c...@corp.supernews.com:
<snip>
Cathy
> But at least it'll end up on the floor and be rewindable/reusable, contrasted
> to the other method where the end will go flying up into the air and flop into
> the bowl where it'll wick and saturate the entire roll thus ruining it.
>
You guys must learn to put the seat AND the lid down. Jeesh....
Thad Floryan
| Thad Floryan wrote:
| > But at least it'll end up on the floor and be rewindable/reusable,
| > contrasted to the other method where the end will go flying up into
| > the air and flop into the bowl where it'll wick and saturate the entire
| > roll thus ruining it.
|
| You guys must learn to put the seat AND the lid down. Jeesh....
What seat? What lid? Some of us can multitask and simply stand over the
bowl while simultaneously shaving, brushing teeth and combing hair. Next
you're probably gonna write one should draw the curtain while showering.
:-)
John Hopkins
<runs & hides>
Cathy
With that kind of attitude Thad, why not I just hose you down in the
back yard? :)
John Hopkins
> It doesnt matter to me, I like it on top and bottom.
Doesn't that get people looking at you sideways?
That's how I'd be inclined.
(Sorry. My cats scanned me this morning...)
Mark
>All that and you bottom post too ! A truely enlightened soul. Old perhaps
>as am I, but enlightened. I remember 110 baud connections and print
>terminals as well. Wrote plenty of code on the old green bar paper too.
>Fortran and APL ..... sheesh, where's my cane and seeing eye dog.
I've been following this thread and been having a gas reading it. Much
better than the goto or refractor wars. I do sometimes top post though
and Esmail caught me not clipping and snipping messages properly.
At least we don't have people in here typing in CAPS :)
Print terminals = teletypes? I bet punch cards were part of your life
as they were in mine too.
This kind of stuff should never be discussed in public you know as it
truely dates a person.
Topp_rolmc
Cathy wrote:
>
> Topp_rolmc wrote:
>
> >
> > Stephen Paul wrote:
> >
>
> >
> >>Sooo, anyone been out observing lately, or bought any new equipment they'd
> >>like to tell us about. ;-)
> >>
> >
> > I have been testing my Apex 90 and Kodak DC290 on venus and the
> > moon.... Pics will show up
> > eventually...
> >
>
> I have a DC 280, they are nice cameras.
>
I hope you have some nice accessories for it. They are a pain to hook
up to telescopes...
--
Topp
HSB99 BS35
'97 FLHRP Drifter
Topp_rolmc
Cathy wrote:
>
> Topp_rolmc wrote:
>
> >
> > Stephen Paul wrote:
> >
>
> >
> >>Sooo, anyone been out observing lately, or bought any new equipment they'd
> >>like to tell us about. ;-)
> >>
> >
> > I have been testing my Apex 90 and Kodak DC290 on venus and the
> > moon.... Pics will show up
> > eventually...
> >
>
> I have a DC 280, they are nice cameras.
BTW- Does the DC280 have a remote shutter option?
Bill Foley
Ed - Supernews NNTP Operations
<chrisjwarwick@bt..uk.com> wrote:
>I usually try very hard not to get involved in this kind of stuff and agree
>that it distracts from the intended purpose of the group, but on this
>occassion I just have to say that boy, do you have your head up your arse.
Well, if you guys can't take advice from someone who does usenet for a
living and you can't follow a simple netiquette guide. I'd have to say
the head/arse comment applies to yourself.
Cheers
Ed
Stephen Paul
news:3d91ddd5...@corp.supernews.com...
I love Usenet. LOL.
Cathy
> Cathy <cat...@nospamworldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3D8F965E...@nospamworldnet.att.net>...
>
>>It doesnt matter to me, I like it on top and bottom.
>>
>
> Doesn't that get people looking at you sideways?
>
> That's how I'd be inclined.
If observing floats your boat, that ok. It doesn't matter to me.
Cathy Sienko
>
> I hope you have some nice accessories for it.
I do. I have an adapter for macro lenses and a HOYA #72 IR filter. DC280
does not have threads to screw lenses or filters on.
> They are a pain to hook
> up to telescopes...
>
Yes, I know. Afocal with the dc280. PITA. I hook up a Pentax MX to a
C5. Prime focus. Its easier. :)
>
> BTW- Does the DC280 have a remote shutter option?
>
Just 10 sec. time delay.
Thad Floryan
| Thad Floryan wrote:
| > What seat? What lid? Some of us can multitask and simply stand over the
| > bowl while simultaneously shaving, brushing teeth and combing hair. Next
| > you're probably gonna write one should draw the curtain while showering.
| >
| > :-)
|
| With that kind of attitude Thad, why not I just hose you down in the
| back yard? :)
Sounds good to me, but let's use the front yard so the car can get washed,
too. :-)
Thad Floryan
| Nope, women have to learn to put the seat back UP.
And to stop leaving fingernail polish streaks on the wall behind the
towel bar.
John J. Kasianowicz
John J. Kasianowicz
I use a wide range of scopes (a few apos from 90mm to 155mm aperture), a 10"
Mak-Cass w/great optics and a 20" Obsession. The apos and Mak-Cass are used
primarily for the Moon and planets. The Mak-Cass does a good job on some
DSOs. The relatively large Dob is mostly used for faint fuzzy DS stuff and
for nights when the transparency is great. The best and brightest DSOs
(e.g., NA Nebula, M8, M20, the Veil) have looked like photographs in this
scope. I'm dying to look through a quality 30" scope (hopefully sooner than
later).
Gary Heath
and keep cold beer in the fridge?
And cookies, I really like cookies.
If so ... I'm your mutt!! <G>
Gary
"John J. Kasianowicz" <sur...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:amtuvk$4b4$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Sean Golden
I suppose. Still, it is so much fun goring your ox that I can't help
myself...
In article <3d91530c...@corp.supernews.com>,
e...@supernews.net (Ed - Supernews NNTP Operations) wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 00:47:19 GMT, Sean Golden
> <seang...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >Two things:
> >
> >1. The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document and as such
> >it doesn't matter whether it is "out of date" or not.
>
> Neither are the usenet netiquette guides.
If it is just a "guide" and not a "legal document" then why are you so
determined to enforce it? Frankly it sounds to me that you'd LIKE it to
be law.
>
> >This comment
> >would have made sense had you said "US Constitution" perhaps.
>
> In what way?
The US Constitution IS law, it DOES govern people's actions, much as you
seem to think some arbitrary guidelines ought to govern how people post
to USENet.
>
> >2. The Declaration of Independence is derived from hundreds of years of
> >philosophical thought and hard-won experience in the human condition.
> >The "rules" of Usenet etiquette were derived by a group of
> >self-appointed computer enthusiasts who, especially at that time, were
> >world renowned (and rightly so) for their lack of communication skills
> >and poor user interfaces. Hardly a group I would look to for rules of
> >social interaction.
>
> What does social interaction have to do with posting
> guidelines/etiquette?
Every now and then you post a real doozy... Go look up the word
"etiquette" and see what it says. Never mind, I'll do it for you:
etiguette: "The practices and forms prescribed by social convention or
by authority."
Since there is no USENet "authority" governing net posting rules, then
it must be a "social convention" right? Or are there really "netiquette
police" out there? Secret police maybe? What is the penalty for
top-posting? 20 days in jail? $400 fine? maybe I'm better off not
knowing...
>
> <snip>
> >> Usenet would be a better place without some of the trolls that crashed
> >> our little usenet party. I take it you enjoy the "Moon Hoax" and
> >> "Planet-X" trolling that takes place in this group. I for one could do
> >> without them. Sigh...
> >
> >The world would be a better place without lots of people, but I have
> >always found the "cure" for that to be worse than the disease. In order
> >to keep out the trolls, too many good people would be kept out too. I
> >prefer accepting the bad with the good when it comes to humanity,
> >because I believe overall the good outweighs the bad.
>
> You think humanity is better off having folks like Hitler and Bin
> Laden and Hussein around? Wake up and smell the coffee.
LOL! Where did you learn to debate? USENet? Let's see, I say "I like
humans, there is more good than evil in humans." Your "logic" then
leads you to say "Then you must like Hitler." This is like a political
debate, don't confuse us with the facts now...
I guess I have to spell it out for you. I more fear a world where
people try to identify and eliminate "potential" Hitlers than I do one
where we deal with a "real" Hitler after he has revealed himself. I
don't think you or anyone else can identify potential trolls and stop
them from joining the party, and trying to do so will do more harm than
good. Now how you get to "you love Hitler" from that is yet another
doozy...
>
> >For every
> >annoying Usenet Troll "let in" hundreds of interesting and vibrant
> >people have opened up the community and made it a much better place
> >overall.
>
> The interesting and vibrant people can stay. I only have a beef with
> the trolls.
Okay, you tell me how you can identify the trolls before they start
trolling then and start a campaign to eliminate them before they can
pollute USENet with actual trolls. Seems to me there was a German
leader a few generations ago who used that sort of logic... Let's see,
what will you do? Examine keyboarding patterns? Choices of subject
matter? Take a poll? How you gonna do it? By the way, while we are on
the subject of eliminating undesirable elements, I hate people who take
15 items to the 12 item line in the supermarket. What's your plan to
end that behavior?
>
> >You and I will simply have to disagree on this.
>
> Yup.
>
> >I don't conform to your
> >idea of Usenet "etiquette" because it is too restrictive, too outdated
> >and too arbitrary. You can live by whatever rules you like, that's fine
> >with me. But if you look down your nose at people because they top
> >post, then you are reducing your own experience, not mine.
>
> This is what you don't seem to understand. By not adhering to
> netiquette guidelines you are reducing my experience as well as others
> who read your posts.
By being a rigid, authoritarian, cantankerous person with ossified gray
matter, your posts reduce everyone's experience. So there. nana nana
boo boo. You know, USENet has a way to deal with me, you can ignore my
posts since you don't like them. You can even killfile them. It won't
hurt my feelings. Even more than that, you can search out my offending
posts and send them to my ISP abuse police and see if they agree with
you that I am a public menace who needs to be curbed. Gee, maybe I
shouldn't tell you that...
>
> Ed
>
> P.S. It was much more pleasant to read your followup and respond to it
> since for the most part you used the bottom posting method this time.
> For me this makes more sense.
I hope you approved of this one too, since adherence to form seems more
important to you than enlightening content.... Frankly I much more want
to read intelligent information, regardless of how it is formatted, than
I care about top or bottom posting. sheeesh.
-sdg
Cathy
> If your friend brings the scope, have fun!
>
> I use a wide range of scopes (a few apos from 90mm to 155mm aperture), a 10"
> Mak-Cass w/great optics and a 20" Obsession. The apos and Mak-Cass are used
> primarily for the Moon and planets. The Mak-Cass does a good job on some
> DSOs. The relatively large Dob is mostly used for faint fuzzy DS stuff and
> for nights when the transparency is great. The best and brightest DSOs
> (e.g., NA Nebula, M8, M20, the Veil) have looked like photographs in this
> scope. I'm dying to look through a quality 30" scope (hopefully sooner than
> later).
Thanks John.
Looking through someone elses scope is like having them make dinner.
Not only does it look better it also tastes better.
Im mainly a planetary person, so this should be a real feast.
Cathy
Cathy Sienko
>
> And to stop leaving fingernail polish streaks on the wall behind the
> towel bar.
>
I dont use fingernail polish, because I keep my nails short. I cant set
the camera lens with long fingernails.
I also keep my toothbrush in the kitchen because I dont want toilet
flush cooties spraying all over it.
Wash out the sink after you shave too. Im not about to clean up after
you...I aint your maid.
Close the shower curtain after you finish your shower. I dont want
sceevy mildew growing on the liner. Tuck the liner in the tub when you
shower..ding dong.
Clean the soap....come on. Thats really gross.
Oh, whats the problem... can't you aim?
Yeahyeah, the band's on stage and its one of those nights.......
Boris Štromar
> If it is just a "guide" and not a "legal document" then why are you so
> determined to enforce it? Frankly it sounds to me that you'd LIKE it to
> be law.
There's no law prohibiting you to eat with your bare hands, burp and fart
in a restaurant, too ;)
--
Boris Stromar : bstr...@grf.hr : AD Infinitum member : Zagreb, Croatia
Astro sketches, video & observing % http://astrobobo.tripod.com
Thad Floryan
| Thad Floryan wrote:
| > And to stop leaving fingernail polish streaks on the wall behind the
| > towel bar.
|
| I dont use fingernail polish, because I keep my nails short. I cant set
| the camera lens with long fingernails.
Super!
| I also keep my toothbrush in the kitchen because I dont want toilet
| flush cooties spraying all over it.
Hmmm, put the brush in a holder in the bathroom closet.
| Wash out the sink after you shave too. Im not about to clean up after
| you...I aint your maid.
I always rinse/wipe my sink(s) out with disposable paper towels, not the
"real" bathroom towels.
| Close the shower curtain after you finish your shower. I dont want
| sceevy mildew growing on the liner. Tuck the liner in the tub when you
| shower..ding dong.
Good advice; I do the same.
| Clean the soap....come on. Thats really gross.
|
| Oh, whats the problem... can't you aim?
|
| Yeahyeah, the band's on stage and its one of those nights.......
Let's not forget to remove the hair on the ceiling above the shower, too.
(Damifino how it gets there, though :-)
Ed - Supernews NNTP Operations
<seang...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Now this thread is getting so long that it is rude to keep adding to it
>I suppose. Still, it is so much fun goring your ox that I can't help
>myself...
Ed sees the "Don't feed the trolls!" sign.
John Hopkins
> I also keep my toothbrush in the kitchen because I dont want toilet
> flush cooties spraying all over it.
LOL. You have now guaranteed I will be moving my toothbrush out of the
bathroom.
> Oh, whats the problem... can't you aim?
This is why I won't use public men's rooms unless it's absolutely
unavoidable. Some guys seem to forget how to *flush*, much less aim.
/John
Roger Cole
<seang...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Now this thread is getting so long that it is rude to keep adding to it
>I suppose. Still, it is so much fun goring your ox that I can't help
>myself...
By Usenet convention, I am about to fix that. See below.
[major snippage]
>> You think humanity is better off having folks like Hitler and Bin
>> Laden and Hussein around? Wake up and smell the coffee.
Godwin's Law is hereby invoked. Game over.
Move along, ladies and gentlemen, nothing more to see here, move
along...
Roger
PS - Nice responses, Sean.
--
Remove "SPAMPRUF" to email me.
Note new email forwarder domain.
Roger Cole
I like Usenet but I don't like arrogant, pompous, pushy,
self-righteous know-it-alls one bit. I HAD been pretty happy with my
Supernews account. Wonder where I should start looking for a new
Usenet service?
If you just posted your puritanical nonsense under your name, or a
screen name, that might be different. But attaching "Supernews NNTP
Operations" to your screen name looks very much like you are claiming
your positions are those of the company. Is this your claim?
Roger
Sean Golden
e...@supernews.net (Ed - Supernews NNTP Operations) wrote:
So Ed, if anyone posts something you don't agree with, especially if
they make you look like a fool in a debate, ergo they are a troll.
I don't think it's very nice in your universe.
Clear skies, you need them.
-sdg
Sean Golden
Well, on the other hand, now I get to respond to my own post, #3 on the
list of USENet posting no-nos.
Hey! A double!
-sdg
In article <seangolden-89302...@nnrp03.earthlink.net>,
Ed - Supernews NNTP Operations
<rag...@SPAMPRUF.asbrand.com> wrote:
>If you just posted your puritanical nonsense under your name, or a
>screen name, that might be different. But attaching "Supernews NNTP
>Operations" to your screen name looks very much like you are claiming
>your positions are those of the company. Is this your claim?
Don't take my word for it. Drop by supernews.general and you can ask
the other sys admins yourself about their views on top posting.
Ed
Ed - Supernews NNTP Operations
<rag...@SPAMPRUF.asbrand.com> wrote:
>>> You think humanity is better off having folks like Hitler and Bin
>>> Laden and Hussein around? Wake up and smell the coffee.
I was starting to wonder if no one caught this.
>Godwin's Law is hereby invoked. Game over.
Yup, about time.
Ed
John J. Kasianowicz
don't have a nice scope. I have 6 (and soon to have 7) nice OTAs! We can
accomodate you w/the beer. My wife makes some really fine brownies. Please
though, no p*ssing on the neighbors' bushes! <g>