Usenet Quoting Style
Simon R. Hughes
deals with the style of quoting postings in replies that the majority
of people here appear to prefer.
I would appreciate some feedback: disagreements, suggestions for
improvements, spelling flames, sheep puns, etc..
I will take it down if the general "feeling" is that I shouldn't have
uploaded it in the first place.
URL right down there at the bottom.
--
Simon R. Hughes -- http://sult.8m.com/
Quoting Usenet Articles in Follow-ups
http://sult.8m.com/quote.html
Perchprism
>From: shu...@tromso.online.no (Simon R. Hughes)
>Date: Wed, 27 October 1999 06:27 PM EDT
>Message-id: <MPG.12819a0bd...@news.online.no>
Suggested corrections in square brackets:
Quoting is placing text from the news article you are replying [to] in your own
article. Lines of quoted text should be marked at the beginning with a special
character to indicated that they are quoted, rather than original[,] text. The
symbol most often used for marking in this manner is the ["]greater than["]
symbol (>), followed by a single or double space.
Quoting too much of the previous text.
Only leave the text from the previous message that is necessary to give your
article its intended meaning. A useful[] though not always practical aim is
that not more than half of your total message should be quoted text.
*******************
Very nice. Short and sweet. FAQ it.
Perchprism
(southern New Jersey, near Philadelphia)
Peter Moylan
>I have partially translated, partially nailed together a web page that
>deals with the style of quoting postings in replies that the majority
>of people here appear to prefer.
That is one vicious web page. I don't reboot my office computer more
than once every few months, but this was one of those occasions.
Somehow you've managed to find the trick for killing Netscape in a way
that locks up the entire operating system.
Since I'm unable to read the page, I can't tell what you've already
covered, but I'll throw in a suggestion anyway: the standard delimiter
for a signature is "-- ", where the space character is important.
(Some newsreaders trim out signatures when you're composing a response
(this can be useful when dealing with the signature abusers such as
that Hines fellow), but nonstandard delimiters interfere with the system.)
You have it right, indeed most of us have it right, but I've noticed
that the Outlook Express users almost invariably get it wrong, so it's
worth a mention.
--
Peter Moylan pe...@ee.newcastle.edu.au
Mike Barnes
>I have partially translated, partially nailed together a web page that
>deals with the style of quoting postings in replies that the majority
>of people here appear to prefer.
>
>improvements, spelling flames, sheep puns, etc..
"The symbol most often used for marking in this manner is the
greater than symbol (>), followed by a single or double space."
In my experience this "single or double space" is normally (and
thankfully) absent. Do you perhaps mean the blank line separating
quoted text from original? But I see that you mention the blank lines
lower down.
It's perhaps also worth saying is that ">" is strongly preferred because
many newsreaders look for it in order to distinguish quoted from
original material, e.g. by using different colours. If anyone uses a
different character they will cause their readers some inconvenience.
"Most newsreaders automatically quote in your reply the article
you are following-up (answering). Otherwise, it's ctrl+c from
the message you are replying to, and ctrl+v into your reply."
This "otherwise..." seems overly Windows/Mac oriented, and leaves out a
lot of important detail (selecting the text to be quoted, positioning
the cursor, getting the ">"s in there, etc).
I liked the overall structure a *lot*.
FWIW this topic has been debated in uk.telecom, and I gather it spilled
over into the microsoft.* groups. One of the uk.telecom regulars e-
mailed Microsoft and got them to change their FAQ [gasp!]. The extract
below shows the result, which explores some not-so-common potential
errors:
8<----8<----8<----8<----8<----8<----8<----8<----8<----8<----8<----8<----
When including text from a previous message in the thread, trim it down
to include only text pertinent to your response. Your response should
appear below the quoted information.
In follow-ups, whether News or Mail, CUT headers & signatures, PRUNE
quotations, and preserve order. That is to say, quote above each part
of your reply as much of the earlier stuff as is needed to put the new
material in context, but no more; most readers will be able to refer to
the earlier article itself, if need be. Never write on the same line as
a quotation, except in lists and notes; generally leave a wholly blank
line between. Do not quote the header or the signature, unless it is
relevant to do so.
8<----8<----8<----8<----8<----8<----8<----8<----8<----8<----8<----8<----
Another thing that perhaps needs to be said is that you must *not*
change any quoted text.
And then there's the "-- " minefield to cover.
And cross-posting.
And off-topic/on-topic.
And I wish you luck!
--
Mike Barnes
Please note new e-mail address from 29th September 1999
Dave A. Homeowner
>
> On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 00:27:23 +0200, shu...@tromso.online.no (Simon R.
> Hughes) wrote:
>
> >I have partially translated, partially nailed together a web page that
> >deals with the style of quoting postings in replies that the majority
> >of people here appear to prefer.
> >
> >I would appreciate some feedback: disagreements, suggestions for
> >improvements, spelling flames, sheep puns, etc..
>
> sheep puns. I have just a quick query -- do the CTRL+C and CTRL+V
> commands work with a Mac, or is there some other way to copy and
> paste? I seem to recall that Macs have some key other than the CTRL
> key. And there are some Mac types out there.
According to:
http://www.sfu.ca/~carmean/macshortcuts.html
***** Begin Included Text *****
Copy Selection: Command- C
Cut Selection: Command- X
Paste Selection: Command- V
The command key is the same as the apple or the 'splat' key next to the
space bar.
***** End Included Text *****
Murray Arnow
>On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 00:27:23 +0200, shu...@tromso.online.no (Simon R.
>Hughes) wrote:
>
>>I have partially translated, partially nailed together a web page that
>>deals with the style of quoting postings in replies that the majority
>>of people here appear to prefer.
>>
>>I would appreciate some feedback: disagreements, suggestions for
>>improvements, spelling flames, sheep puns, etc..
>
>In my quick reading of it I didn't spot any typos, misspellings, or
>sheep puns. I have just a quick query -- do the CTRL+C and CTRL+V
>commands work with a Mac, or is there some other way to copy and
>paste? I seem to recall that Macs have some key other than the CTRL
>key. And there are some Mac types out there.
I think that's the command key.[1] Which does bring into question whether the
cut and paste procedure should be written as specific keystrokes; it may be
best to simply say "cut and paste" without instructions.
[1] UNIX uses still different commands for cut and paste.
nancy g.
> That is one vicious web page. I don't reboot my office computer more
> than once every few months, but this was one of those occasions.
> Somehow you've managed to find the trick for killing Netscape in a way
> that locks up the entire operating system.
Interesting. I just browsed over to the page in question. It loaded
rather quickly, I read it, closed it, and came back to this window to
type my reply to you ... all via Netscape, and all without the slightest
hesitation in the performance of my PC.
I suggest you may have misplaced the blame for your system's problems.
I do note that the page uses the CSS document type, which I understand
has caused some browsers some problems, including various versions of
Netscape; are you by any chance using Netscape 4.7? That may be the one
that has problems with CSS but, since I'm not so afflicted, I reallly
don't remember for sure.
In any event, this is just to let Simon know that not all versions of
Netscape find his page a problem.
nancy g.
Michael West
Peter Moylan <pe...@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au> wrote in message
news:slrn81fpk...@eepjm.newcastle.edu.au...
>
>the standard delimiter
> for a signature is "-- ", where the space character is important.
> (Some newsreaders trim out signatures when you're composing a response
> (this can be useful when dealing with the signature abusers such as
> that Hines fellow), but nonstandard delimiters interfere with the system.)
>
> You have it right, indeed most of us have it right, but I've noticed
> that the Outlook Express users almost invariably get it wrong, so it's
> worth a mention.
Yikes -- that'd be me. Is that "hyphen hyphen space?"
Like this:
--
Michael West
Melbourne ??
Michael Cargal
Yes, and my newsreader dropped your sig, though I see from Mimi's
reply that hers did not. We both use the same newsreader (agent 1.6),
so I wonder what the difference is. I couldn't find a setting for
including or not including a sig.
--
Michael Cargal car...@cts.com
Mike Barnes
>
>Peter Moylan <pe...@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au> wrote in message
>news:slrn81fpk...@eepjm.newcastle.edu.au...
>
>
>>
>>the standard delimiter
>> for a signature is "-- ", where the space character is important.
>> (Some newsreaders trim out signatures when you're composing a response
>> (this can be useful when dealing with the signature abusers such as
>> that Hines fellow), but nonstandard delimiters interfere with the system.)
>>
>> You have it right, indeed most of us have it right, but I've noticed
>> that the Outlook Express users almost invariably get it wrong, so it's
>> worth a mention.
>
>
>Yikes -- that'd be me. Is that "hyphen hyphen space?"
>
>Like this:
>
>Michael West
>Melbourne ??
Exactly! There is no space after the "--" in your article. You put one
in and OE kindly removed it before posting. AFAIK the only solution is
to not use OE.
Jerry Friedman
shu...@tromso.online.no (Simon R. Hughes) wrote:
> I have partially translated, partially nailed together a web page that
> deals with the style of quoting postings in replies that the majority
> of people here appear to prefer.
>
> I would appreciate some feedback: disagreements, suggestions for
> improvements, spelling flames, sheep puns, etc..
I think it's excellent. However, can I interest you in putting a hyphen
in "the greater-than sign"? Or writing it with quotation marks as
Perchprism suggested?
I agree with Mike Barnes that the structure is good, except that I think
changing all the "common mistakes" to "suggestions" would be more
pleasant. You've already worded them as suggestions; you'd just need to
change the titles. Alternatively, you could make them answers to
questions and call it a FAQ.
I didn't see any discussion of ellipses (which I may be the only person
to use) or "[snip]". If I were writing this advice, I'd strongly
suggest using some such sign wherever anything is edited out.
If you address Mike Barnes's point about not changing the quoted text,
you might also want to address ways of emphasizing parts of quoted
material. I can't suggest what to ******say*****, though, because I
have no opinion.
^^
Finally, you might want to mention that clever software that calls
people "lovely and talented" or the like will push somebody's button
occasionally. Though most people probably skip right over those
attributions.
--
Jerry Friedman
jfrE...@nnm.cc.nm.us
i before e
and all the disclaimers
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Simon R. Hughes
> Simon R. Hughes <shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote:
> >I have partially translated, partially nailed together a web page that
> >deals with the style of quoting postings in replies that the majority
> >of people here appear to prefer.
>
> That is one vicious web page. I don't reboot my office computer more
> than once every few months, but this was one of those occasions.
> Somehow you've managed to find the trick for killing Netscape in a way
> that locks up the entire operating system.
I added stats, which serve no purpose other than my curtiosity. I will
remove them, which will remove as many problems with javascript,
microsoft specific "HTML", etc. as I can. (The host for my website
adds a ton of scripting at the beginning of any page I upload.)
Sorry for the inconvenience.
> Since I'm unable to read the page, I can't tell what you've already
> covered, but I'll throw in a suggestion anyway: the standard delimiter
> for a signature is "-- ", where the space character is important.
> (Some newsreaders trim out signatures when you're composing a response
> (this can be useful when dealing with the signature abusers such as
> that Hines fellow), but nonstandard delimiters interfere with the system.)
That comes under "general posting style" more than the topic of my
page, but I see no reason why I shouldn't expand the scope of the
page, in time.
Simon R. Hughes
> On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 00:27:23 +0200, shu...@tromso.online.no (Simon R.
> Hughes) wrote:
>
> >I have partially translated, partially nailed together a web page that
> >deals with the style of quoting postings in replies that the majority
> >of people here appear to prefer.
> >
> >I would appreciate some feedback: disagreements, suggestions for
> >improvements, spelling flames, sheep puns, etc..
>
> In my quick reading of it I didn't spot any typos, misspellings, or
> sheep puns. I have just a quick query -- do the CTRL+C and CTRL+V
> commands work with a Mac, or is there some other way to copy and
> paste? I seem to recall that Macs have some key other than the CTRL
> key. And there are some Mac types out there.
There are mistakes on the page. Others have mentioned them.
I am pleasantly surprised by the graciousness of the Mac users out
there. No flames, just gentle reminders that WinTel is not the only
platform in the universe.
I will remove all references to the specific command keys connected to
the actions. Instead I will name the commands (copy, paste, etc.).
> Otherwise, it's neat.
Thank you.
> But how are you going to get people to read it, much less to adhere to
> it?
That comes later.
Simon R. Hughes
> pe...@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) wrote in alt.usage.english:
> >That is one vicious web page. I don't reboot my office computer more
> >than once every few months, but this was one of those occasions.
> >Somehow you've managed to find the trick for killing Netscape in a way
> >that locks up the entire operating system.
>
> FWIW, I'm running Netscape 4.5, and didn't have the kind of problem you
> described. However, while the page is loading there's a rectangular area
> of distortion at the top left of my Netscape window, which clears when
> the page has loaded.
>
> I run with images turned off (for speed) and Javascript turned off (for
> safety), but I didn't see anything obvious in the source code of the page
> that would account for your experience, unless it's that
> <noscript><ilayer> stuff, which could well be removed.
I wish it could. The host adds all of that stuff to any web page I
upload. Advertising to allow me to have the subdomain for nothing.
> I've already sent Simon my comments on the text of the page, so I won't
> repeat them here.
Simon R. Hughes
> In alt.usage.english, Simon R. Hughes <shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote
[snip]
> >I would appreciate some feedback: disagreements, suggestions for
> >improvements, spelling flames, sheep puns, etc..
>
>
> "The symbol most often used for marking in this manner is the
> greater than symbol (>), followed by a single or double space."
>
> In my experience this "single or double space" is normally (and
> thankfully) absent. Do you perhaps mean the blank line separating
> quoted text from original? But I see that you mention the blank lines
> lower down.
My newsreader does not recognise the text as being quoted *without*
the presence of the space after the ">". I need more voices on this
matter before I can decide whether I should change it or not.
> It's perhaps also worth saying is that ">" is strongly preferred because
> many newsreaders look for it in order to distinguish quoted from
> original material, e.g. by using different colours. If anyone uses a
> different character they will cause their readers some inconvenience.
Good idea.
> "Most newsreaders automatically quote in your reply the article
> you are following-up (answering). Otherwise, it's ctrl+c from
> the message you are replying to, and ctrl+v into your reply."
>
> This "otherwise..." seems overly Windows/Mac oriented, and leaves out a
> lot of important detail (selecting the text to be quoted, positioning
> the cursor, getting the ">"s in there, etc).
I have addressed the problem of my platform fixation. The document
is, I hope, no longer WinTel-centric.
I have assumed that most posters to Usenet know the rudiments of using
a computer. Those who don't have the necessary expertise need help
that I have no intention of giving in a document that is for our
benefit rather than theirs (it is full of "rules" whereby they might
fit in here).
> I liked the overall structure a *lot*.
:-) (I don't care -- I LIKE the occasional smiley!)
> FWIW this topic has been debated in uk.telecom, and I gather it spilled
> over into the microsoft.* groups. One of the uk.telecom regulars e-
> mailed Microsoft and got them to change their FAQ [gasp!]. The extract
> below shows the result, which explores some not-so-common potential
> errors:
[snip useful pointers]
> Another thing that perhaps needs to be said is that you must *not*
> change any quoted text.
This borders on the ethics of posting rather than the style. Perhaps
it can wait until Garry publishes the _Totally Official AUE Style
Guide in English Usage_. When is that due, Garry?
> And then there's the "-- " minefield to cover.
>
> And cross-posting.
>
> And off-topic/on-topic.
Again, these have not much to do with the style of posting.
> And I wish you luck!
Where is Mark Israel?
Philip 'Yes, that's my address' Newton
Hughes) wrote:
>Thus spake Mike Barnes, mi...@senrab.com:
>
>> In my experience this "single or double space" is normally (and
>> thankfully) absent. Do you perhaps mean the blank line separating
>> quoted text from original? But I see that you mention the blank lines
>> lower down.
>
>My newsreader does not recognise the text as being quoted *without*
>the presence of the space after the ">". I need more voices on this
>matter before I can decide whether I should change it or not.
I use Free Agent, which does not add a space after the '>'; however, I
think text looks better *with* a space after the greater-than sign --
it doesn't run into the text so much. But obviously I don't care
enough to make the change when I quote text with FA. Just my opinion,
then.
Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <nospam...@gmx.li>
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> I was reading for sense, not for error.
What??? That's news. Ms. Grammar-Nazi took a rest.
> Um -- I raised this point, and I am not now nor have I ever been a
> Mac user. Dog forbid! Little smiley faces when I boot up...never!
What a moron -- nay! -- what an asshole! The stylized sort-of smiling
face of system 7 and up is there for a reason: we Mac users can smile
(even sneer) at ignorant morons like MeMe Kahn, because our Macs very
rarely crash and have many other advantages Bill Gates hasn't been able
to steal for his buggy & crash-prone operating systems.
Besides, we can customize our startup screen any way we want to. What
an ignorant cunt! (And she's ugly, too. Not to mention fat.)
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman, Editor
MALEDICTA: The International Journal of Verbal Aggression
Santa Rosa, CA 95402, USA
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/meme-moron.html <--- SEE the moron.
Mike Barnes
>> change any quoted text.
>
>This borders on the ethics of posting rather than the style. Perhaps
>it can wait until Garry publishes the _Totally Official AUE Style
>Guide in English Usage_. When is that due, Garry?
>
>> And then there's the "-- " minefield to cover.
>>
>> And cross-posting.
>>
>> And off-topic/on-topic.
>
>Again, these have not much to do with the style of posting.
Fair enough, so it might be a good idea to make it clear that there are
other issues that your document doesn't address.
If I get time I'll try to compose a couple of examples of well-formed
Usenet replies, as these might liven things up a bit and help get the
point across. To keep things simple, I'll e-mail them to you rather
than posting them here.
Unna
Mimi Kahn wrote:
>
> On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 00:31:59 +0200, shu...@tromso.online.no (Simon R.
> Hughes) wrote:
>
> >There are mistakes on the page. Others have mentioned them.
>
> I was reading for sense, not for error.
>
> >I am pleasantly surprised by the graciousness of the Mac users out
> >there. No flames, just gentle reminders that WinTel is not the only
> >platform in the universe.
>
> Um -- I raised this point, and I am not now nor have I ever been a Mac
> user. Dog forbid! Little smiley faces when I boot up...never!
Mimi, please... is this another cry in the dark from the unenlightened majority?
I manage a WinNT network with 30 nodes... I'd scrap it in a heartbeat
for a Mac network... Unfortunately I have to work with the unenlightened
majority. I'm doing my best to turn that around.
BTW, the simple "LSF" on the screen (before the MacOS logo) means you
had a successful system boot. (A frowney face means you haven't - never
happens unless you trashed your hard drive, and then you reboot off the
CD-ROM and fix the hard drive.)
WinNt parades through multiple DOS type text screens to give you the
same information (unless, of course, you get the dreaded Blue Screen of
Death, which happens all too frequently in WinNT.)
Ok... nuff said.. get an iMac... you'll never go back to Windoze
(except under duress.)
U
Ted H.
On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 09:19:44 +0100, Mike Barnes <mi...@senrab.com> wrote:
> In alt.usage.english, Simon R. Hughes <shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote
> >
> >improvements, spelling flames, sheep puns, etc..
>
> "The symbol most often used for marking in this manner is the
> greater than symbol (>), followed by a single or double space."
>
> thankfully) absent.
Some Unix newsreaders default to "> " as the quote indicator.
Pine will actually reformat quoted material so that the line
lengths are under a specified number of characters, but only
if the space is present.
Personally, I find text more readable with the space, but the
point about increasing line length is well taken.
> Another thing that perhaps needs to be said is that you must *not*
> change any quoted text.
I will reformat quoted text to keep line lengths under 72.
Ted
--
Theodore Heise <the...@netins.net> West Lafayette, IN, USA
Marion Gevers
>Where is Mark Israel?
Mark hasn't been spotted in aue for quite a long time now. Either he's lost
usenet access, or he's lost interest in aue. For all practical purposes,
Donna is now the keeper of the FAQ.
We've kept his big FAQ intact mostly because nobody's had the courage to
rewrite it. A lot of work went into it, and it would be a pity to lose that.
Nevertheless, there's nothing wrong in principle with revising it as we see fit.
The only real barrier is that FAQ editors invariably lose enthusiasm after a
while, as they discover the size of the job they've taken on.
I'm inclined to favour the idea of a much smaller FAQ, with pointers to related
documents. In a sense, that's what's already happening with the summaries that
Donna posts from time to time, and the related stuff that Bob C seems to be
maintaining. That lets the work be spread about a bit more.
--
Peter Moylan
Marion Gevers
>Peter Moylan wrote:
>
>> That is one vicious web page. I don't reboot my office computer more
>> than once every few months, but this was one of those occasions.
>> Somehow you've managed to find the trick for killing Netscape in a way
>> that locks up the entire operating system.
>
>rather quickly, I read it, closed it, and came back to this window to
>type my reply to you ... all via Netscape, and all without the slightest
>hesitation in the performance of my PC.
>
>I suggest you may have misplaced the blame for your system's problems.
You're probably right. I'm using Netscape version 4.61 for OS/2, and that's
the version that's convinced a great many OS/2 users to go back to
Netscape 2.02. (It's not that Netscape version 2 is particularly good,
you understand; it's just that it's a whole lot smaller, faster, and
less inclined to crash than version 4.) Unfortunately the non-Netscape
browsers haven't kept up with the shifting sands of changing HTML rules,
so at least for now we're stuck with it. (Well, there's always StarOffice,
but it's even more of a pig than Netscape is.) The software people at
IBM are well aware that Netscape is a crock of shit, but the men in the
dark grey suits have decreed that they must not criticise a Business
Partner - and, worse, that they must stop all development on anything
that might turn out to be superior to said partner's offerings.
In addition, I've become sloppy about the filtering I apply to incoming
html code. All web browsers are better behaved (and a hell of a lot
faster) if you suppress the advertising, but that does require that you
keep the advertisement detectors up to date.
--
Peter Moylan
Matt Curtin
bra...@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) said:
Stan> It appears in a draft RFC dated 1995, if I recall correctly, but
Stan> that draft RFC never went through the formal procedures to
Stan> become authoritative.
You refer to the document now known as "son-of-1036", the draft that
was created as a replacement for the aged RFC 1036.
An unfortunate result of not having a current standard for some time
is that idiotic software has been allowed to be created without an
authoritative document to which we can refer in order to decry such
nonsense. Too much has been left up to implementors for too long.
The USEFOR working group is currently working on the "grandson-of-
1036". I'm happy to report that at long last, progress is being made
and we're likely to see a suitable replacement for RFC 1036 within our
lifetime.
--
Matt Curtin cmcu...@interhack.net http://www.interhack.net/people/cmcurtin/
Matt Curtin
shu...@tromso.online.no (Simon R. Hughes) said:
Simon> My newsreader does not recognise the text as being quoted
Simon> *without* the presence of the space after the ">". I need more
Simon> voices on this matter before I can decide whether I should
Simon> change it or not.
The leading ">" is generally considered a quote, with or without a
whitespace character afterward.
(I believe that the original was to use ">", but because mail transfer
agents would insert a ">" in front of lines that began "From " to
prevent that line from being interpreted as the beginning of a new
message in a Berkeley Unix-style mailbox, the habit of using "> "
developed. Neither is clearly dominant now, so either should probably
be interpreted as a quote.)
I just recognized the irony of my commentary on standard quoting
styles given my supercite-sytle quotes. :-)
>> And then there's the "-- " minefield to cover.
Just to be completely clear you should probably say that the signature
seperator is "-- \n", where "\n" is "newline". I envision someone
trying to do something like
-- my name my@addr where-i-work
for a signature.
Some parts of this are going to be redundant with the USEFOR work, so
I'd recommend occasionally checking our page at
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/usefor-charter.html to see the
status of our draft. We're currently hashing out issues in section
6. So there's a bit more work to do, but then a new draft should be
released after section 7 is finished, with some possible work on the
smaller sections 8-10.
Andreas Prilop
shu...@tromso.online.no (Simon R. Hughes) wrote:
> Quoting Usenet Articles in Follow-ups
> http://sult.8m.com/quote.html
Very good!
What I hate most in Follow-ups is the sick behavior of
localized versions of MS Outlook Express. They don't use "Re: "
but "Aw: ", "Sv: ", "Odp: ", and similar crap. This is not
helpful for news- (and mail-) readers that sort by Subject.
--
Dass der Mensch einen freien Willen hat, sieht man am Sortiment einer Bar.
Donna Richoux
> Simon R. Hughes <shu...@tromso.online.no> a écrit:
>
> >Where is Mark Israel?
>
> Mark hasn't been spotted in aue for quite a long time now. Either he's lost
> usenet access, or he's lost interest in aue. For all practical purposes,
> Donna is now the keeper of the FAQ.
All I ever volunteered to do was the "Intro documents" or "Mini-FAQs."
Bob Cunningham has done far more than I in updating and supplementing
the FAQ, keeping track of different versions, etc. All his work is at
"go.to/aue".
>
> We've kept his big FAQ intact mostly because nobody's had the courage to
> rewrite it.
Ummmmm, I've been told by several people that we don't change it because
Mark wanted us to leave it the way it was. He was willing to do updates,
but as far as I know no one has asked him to, in two years.
>A lot of work went into it, and it would be a pity to lose that.
>Nevertheless, there's nothing wrong in principle with revising it as we
>see fit.
Only with Mark's permission, which we specifically do not have. As far
as I know he is still reachable at his old address.
> The only real barrier is that FAQ editors invariably lose enthusiasm after
> a while, as they discover the size of the job they've taken on.
>
> I'm inclined to favour the idea of a much smaller FAQ, with pointers to
> related documents. In a sense, that's what's already happening with the
> summaries that Donna posts from time to time, and the related stuff that
> Bob C seems to be maintaining. That lets the work be spread about a bit
> more.
I think it's good that Bob C. recently reminded the group that he is
open to contributions to his AUE FAQ Supplement. If anyone wants to help
by summarizing some dicussion, or otherwise contributing to the
documents at go.to/aue, I'm sure he would welcome it. (Bob's been away
on a trip lately.)
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Garry J. Vass
<shu...@tromso.online.no> writes
>> Another thing that perhaps needs to be said is that you must *not*
>> change any quoted text.
>
Correction:
1. As a general rule, one should not perform an operation on quoted
text that involves the insertion or deletion of individual characters or
words.
2. The normal case will involve the deletion of whole lines in order to
bring focus to the portion of quoted text one is responding to. Any
operation other than the deletion of a whole line should be explained.
3. The use of the 'snip operator', i.e., "<...snip...>" is gratuitous,
serving no legitimate function, because it is understood that the astute
poster has already snipped.
4. The use of the 'snip operator' to inject an editorial viewpoint,
i.e., "<...snip a pompous load of old balls...> is classed as a 'cheap
shot'. These serve no purpose, and generally fail to impress.
5. The alteration of quoted text to discredit the author, or to advance
a particular point of view, is too horrible to even think about.
6. Quoted text from personal email without the explicit permission of
the author is a profound breach of etiquette and good taste.
7. Quoted text from another newsgroup should not disclose the identity
of the original poster. This is not only breach of etiquette, but also
demonstrates poor judgement.
8. As a general rule of thumb, the amount of quoted text should
constitute no more than 25 - 30% of the new article. Adding a single
word or phrase to a lengthy posting is not big and not clever.
>This borders on the ethics of posting rather than the style. Perhaps
>it can wait until Garry publishes the _Totally Official AUE Style
>Guide in English Usage_. When is that due, Garry?
>
GJV <- (stunned)
What an absolutely wonderful idea! This would complete the bipolarity
between substance (FAQ) and process (style). All these things can be
addressed if a delicate balance between the prescriptive and the
descriptive is carefully observed by the author(s).
Would anyone like to collaborate on this exciting project?
Garry J. Vass
Jerry Friedman
"Garry J. Vass" <Ga...@gvass.demon.co.uk> wrote:
...
> 3. The use of the 'snip operator', i.e., "<...snip...>" is
gratuitous,
> serving no legitimate function, because it is understood that the
astute
> poster has already snipped.
I disagree. I think good manners requires you to point out ANY change
you've made in something someone else wrote. Not indicating what you've
snipped can make the quoted material look incoherent. And the astute
reader may understand that the astute poster has snipped, but there are
other kinds of readers too.
> 4. The use of the 'snip operator' to inject an editorial viewpoint,
> i.e., "<...snip a pompous load of old balls...> is classed as a 'cheap
> shot'. These serve no purpose, and generally fail to impress.
I agree, of course, but advice against cheap shots should be accompanied
with a prayer to St. Jude.
...
Becky Easy
Kahn) wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:13:13 -0400, Unna <ucer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>WinNt parades through multiple DOS type text screens to give you the
>>same information (unless, of course, you get the dreaded Blue Screen of
>>Death, which happens all too frequently in WinNT.)
>>Ok... nuff said.. get an iMac... you'll never go back to Windoze
>>(except under duress.)
>
>An *iMac*? Good God! Why not an Etch-a-Sketch?
>
>An iMac looks like you should jam a stick up its bottom and lick it.
I've done that and have had that done to me.
Becky Easy
Becky Easy
wrote:
>
>Mimi Kahn <nj...@spamfree.cornell.edu> wrote in message
>news:HOcZOB4kSHKCkPuMkh03Pi=i3...@4ax.com...
>>
>> An *iMac*? Good God! Why not an Etch-a-Sketch?
>>
>> An iMac looks like you should jam a stick up its bottom and lick it.
>>
>
>I don't think this is the right newsgroup for that sort of thing.
Just why aint it?
Becky
John Doherty
> 2. The normal case will involve the deletion of whole lines in order to
> bring focus to the portion of quoted text one is responding to. Any
> operation other than the deletion of a whole line should be explained.
I would say "sentence," not "line."
For example, if the original post is this:
This sentence spans more than one line of text and I do not wish to
respond to it for some reason, presumably in good faith. This is the
sentence to which I'm responding.
I would quote that like this:
> This is the sentence to which I'm responding.
I don't see anything wrong with that, although it requires deleting
material in units other than whole lines.
--
Michael West
Mimi Kahn <nj...@spamfree.cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:HOcZOB4kSHKCkPuMkh03Pi=i3...@4ax.com...
>
> An *iMac*? Good God! Why not an Etch-a-Sketch?
>
> An iMac looks like you should jam a stick up its bottom and lick it.
>
I don't think this is the right newsgroup for that sort of thing.
--
--
Michael West
Melbourne, Australia
« Luxe, calme et volupté »
Simon R. Hughes
> In article <MPG.12819a0bd...@news.online.no>,
> shu...@tromso.online.no (Simon R. Hughes) wrote:
> > I have partially translated, partially nailed together a web page that
> > deals with the style of quoting postings in replies that the majority
> > of people here appear to prefer.
> >
> > I would appreciate some feedback: disagreements, suggestions for
> > improvements, spelling flames, sheep puns, etc..
> ...
>
> I think it's excellent. However, can I interest you in putting a hyphen
> in "the greater-than sign"? Or writing it with quotation marks as
> Perchprism suggested?
Done.
> I agree with Mike Barnes that the structure is good, except that I think
> changing all the "common mistakes" to "suggestions" would be more
> pleasant. You've already worded them as suggestions; you'd just need to
> change the titles. Alternatively, you could make them answers to
> questions and call it a FAQ.
I would argue here about calling a spade a spade, but it is easier to
change the text. Done.
> I didn't see any discussion of ellipses (which I may be the only person
> to use) or "[snip]". If I were writing this advice, I'd strongly
> suggest using some such sign wherever anything is edited out.
Yes. This is within the scope of the topic of the document. Done.
> If you address Mike Barnes's point about not changing the quoted text,
> you might also want to address ways of emphasizing parts of quoted
> material. I can't suggest what to ******say*****, though, because I
> have no opinion.
> ^^
Changing the "Commonest Mistakes" part to "Suggestions..." has
actually enabled me to address Mike's point. Doing so has opened the
way for addressing the emphasis of excerpts of quoted text. I need
suggestions on what to suggest.
> Finally, you might want to mention that clever software that calls
> people "lovely and talented" or the like will push somebody's button
> occasionally. Though most people probably skip right over those
> attributions.
I think that I should be the last person to prescribe norms on that
matter. :-)
--
Simon R. Hughes -- http://sult.8m.com/
Quoting Usenet Articles in Follow-ups
http://sult.8m.com/quote.html
Simon R. Hughes
> shu...@tromso.online.no (Simon R. Hughes) wrote in alt.usage.english:
> >My newsreader does not recognise the text as being quoted *without*
> >the presence of the space after the ">". I need more voices on this
> >matter before I can decide whether I should change it or not.
>
> According to the headers, you post using Gravity 2.10. As you can see
> from my headers, so do I.
>
> My copy of Gravity has no problem at all with the ">" (no space) quoting
> style. Quoted text does get muted when I have that option in effect, and
> obviously it can quote material without a space.
>
> I'm not sure how what change of your settings would recognize ">" with no
> space, but you could ask on alt.usenet.offline-reader and get useful
> responses.
My mistake, at least partially.
The problem is one of the message editor in Gravity. In the reader,
the lines appear quoted even without the space. In the editor, the
space is required.
> From what I've observed, ">" with no spaces is the most common style. I
> personally prefer it, as with "> " lines get too long for the screen more
> quickly.
I have taken out the "followed by one or two spaces" part of the text.
I will leave it up to the readers' discretion.
Mike Barnes
>In article <MPG.1282eca42...@news.online.no>, Simon R. Hughes
><shu...@tromso.online.no> writes
>>> Another thing that perhaps needs to be said is that you must *not*
>>> change any quoted text.
0. When snipping, make sure you don't mess up the attributions.
>Correction:
>
>1. As a general rule, one should not perform an operation on quoted
>text that involves the insertion or deletion of individual characters or
>words.
Taken literally that restricts us to rearranging the existing text.
With a more generous interpretation, it says nothing at all, to me,
anyway.
>2. The normal case will involve the deletion of whole lines in order to
>bring focus to the portion of quoted text one is responding to. Any
>operation other than the deletion of a whole line should be explained.
Whole *sentences* I'll agree to. Whole lines, I don't see it.
>3. The use of the 'snip operator', i.e., "<...snip...>" is gratuitous,
>serving no legitimate function, because it is understood that the astute
>poster has already snipped.
I agree that it's not always necessary, but I don't think it's always
gratuitous. It's not necessary at the start, or at the end, or between
unrelated topics. But when there is material between two quoted
passages that is relevant to the point made by the original quoted, but
not relevant to the response, it can usefully be snipped and indicated
as such.
>4. The use of the 'snip operator' to inject an editorial viewpoint,
>i.e., "<...snip a pompous load of old balls...> is classed as a 'cheap
>shot'. These serve no purpose, and generally fail to impress.
A cheap shot is a cheap shot wherever you find it. Explaining the
nature of a snip need not be cheap shot, and can be useful.
>5. The alteration of quoted text to discredit the author, or to advance
>a particular point of view, is too horrible to even think about.
Agreed, but it happens, in a.u.e and elsewhere.
>6. Quoted text from personal email without the explicit permission of
>the author is a profound breach of etiquette and good taste.
Agreed.
>7. Quoted text from another newsgroup should not disclose the identity
>of the original poster. This is not only breach of etiquette, but also
>demonstrates poor judgement.
But OK with explicit permission, of course.
>8. As a general rule of thumb, the amount of quoted text should
>constitute no more than 25 - 30% of the new article. Adding a single
>word or phrase to a lengthy posting is not big and not clever.
Disagree. If one adheres to the advice on snipping material that is
irrelevant to the response, I don't think that a long reply has any
great advantage over a short reply. In fact, I think I prefer a short
reply.
Having said all that, I think we're in danger of straying from the
point. The point, as I understood it, was to advise people not to post
upside-down, and to wrap this advice up with other good advice so that
the upside-down posters don't think they're being picked on.
Jack Gavin
>Marion Gevers <mar...@eepjm.newcastle.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> Simon R. Hughes <shu...@tromso.online.no> a écrit:
>>
>> >Where is Mark Israel?
>>
>> Mark hasn't been spotted in aue for quite a long time now. Either he's
lost
>> usenet access, or he's lost interest in aue.
>As far as I know he is still reachable at his old address.
>
link to a site of collectvies (exultation of larks, and such) now leads to
a porn site.
I received no response.
--
Jack Gavin
a1a5...@sprint.ca
>Jack Gavin
>
He was a sensitive sort of chap.
Robert Lieblich
>
> On Sat, 30 Oct 1999 13:22:18 GMT, will...@bigfoot.com (Willondon
> Donovan) wrote:
>
> >Garry J. Vass wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> 7. Quoted text from another newsgroup should not disclose the identity
> >> of the original poster. This is not only breach of etiquette, but also
> >
> >Then I suppose it's even more damning to have to ask 'why'?
> >I'd never heard this point of protocol before.
>
> Think back to Bill Palmer, Famous Usenet Writer, who took posts from
> aue (and not just aue, of course) and posted them to hell and gone for
> his own self-aggrandizement.
>
> I think it's only polite to *ask* someone before posting his words to
> another forum. I think there's an underlying assumption that if the
> original poster had wanted his words read in, say, alt.bestiality, he
> or she would have placed them there.
I recall a little contretemps with Palmer about this. All I wanted was
to be told that he had taken postings of mine and put them on other
groups. Being Palmer, he acted as if I had accused him of dining on his
mother's liver.
It continues to strike me as simple good manners to let someone know
when his language is being posted outside the group in which he
participates. I realy don't care about asking permission -- fair use
allows such quotation. Common courtesy calls for notice.
Bob Lieblich
Elron Xemoo
>> 1. As a general rule, one should not perform an operation on quoted
text that involves the insertion or deletion of individual characters or
words.
I mostly agree, though I often correct grammar or punctuation in a quote
without making an explicit notation of it.
Elron Xemoo
>On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 19:29:14 +0100, "Garry J. Vass"
><Ga...@gvass.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[Seven paragraphs of second-level quote not requoted]
>>8. As a general rule of thumb, the amount of quoted text should
>>constitute no more than 25 - 30% of the new article. Adding a single
>>word or phrase to a lengthy posting is not big and not clever.
>I agree with everything you wrote. If that's a "me, too" post, so be
>it. (I'm entitled -- I had an AOL account for a bit.)
Yeah, right, Mimi. I agree with you, so that's why I'm doing the same.
Mark Brader
> > 7. Quoted text from another newsgroup should not disclose the identity
> > of the original poster. This is not only breach of etiquette, but also
> > demonstrates poor judgement. [...]
> Then I suppose it's even more damning to have to ask 'why'?
> I'd never heard this point of protocol before.
Indeed, this "rule" is so contrary to my understanding of netiquette that
until I saw Willondon's response, I read it with its sense reversed (i.e.
as if "disclose" had been "omit"). If this document is actually being
codified, I would urge at least the omission of the rule in its present form.
A still more important point, though, is to identify the original newsgroup.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto sed -e "s;??\\([-=(/)'<!>]\\);?\\\\?\\1;g"
msbr...@interlog.com will fix them... -- Karl Heuer
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Mark Brader
> 1. As a general rule, one should not perform an operation on quoted
> text that involves the insertion or deletion of individual characters or
> words.
No, there are legitimate reasons to do this. The important thing is to
not distort the original poster's sense or context.
One or two reasons have been mentioned in other branches of the thread.
One reason not yet mentioned is to reformat the quoted text into lines
of appropriate length; there is no reason to preserve the line breaks in
the original text unless they were intended to be meaningful.
> 3. The use of the 'snip operator', i.e., "<...snip...>" is gratuitous,
> serving no legitimate function, because it is understood that the astute
> poster has already snipped.
No, it's gratuitious because there is already a punctuation mark for
that purpose, namely the ellipsis. At the beginning or end of a block
of quoted text, though, it's generally gratuitous for the reason that
Garry cites.
The thing I'm surprised not to have seen mentioned about this in an
English usage newsgroup is that quoted text is basically just the same
as the block quotations you'd see in a book, and obeys most of the same
rules. Among other things, this is the ultimate reason why you don't
do it "upside-down". In a book, you'd say something like "John W.
Campbell wrote:" (perhaps identifying the context also), and follow it
with the quote:
The "I didn't think of that" type of failure occurs because
I didn't think of that, and the reason I didn't think of
it is because it never occurred to me. If we'd been able
to think of 'em, we would have.
And then you'd comment on it. See? Just like proper posting style.
Even the use of a "citation character" such as ">" comes from block
quotations. The earliest style on Usenet was to precede each line of
the quoted text with one tab character, which in those days when most
Usenet hosts used UNIX typically showed as an 8-character indentation,
This was a bit too much, and in particular it consumed too much space
when text was doubly quoted (or when text with longish lines was quoted)
and people were too lazy to reformat it. The solution of using "> "
instead (the symbol being chosen to represent the idea of indentation)
followed soon afterwards, and there we are.
--
Mark Brader | "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you
Toronto | do say can and will be misquoted and used against
msbr...@interlog.com | you in a future post." -- Tanja Cooper, misquoted
Garry J. Vass
<mi...@senrab.com> writes
>I agree that it's not always necessary, but I don't think it's always
>gratuitous. It's not necessary at the start, or at the end, or between
Hi Mike!
Great pix of you & Stef from the N-Wet boink! First time ever for Stef
to be caught on film, IIRC...
Anyway to the matter at hand. I agree that you can wordsmith these
things much better than I. As always, as ever, would you mind taking a
go at it?
Kind regards,
Garry J. Vass
(Quartermaster General, Royal Flashman Society of the United Kingdom)
Unna
Becky Easy wrote:
>
> On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:31:12 -0700, nj...@spamfree.cornell.edu (Mimi
> Kahn) wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:13:13 -0400, Unna <ucer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>WinNt parades through multiple DOS type text screens to give you the
> >>same information (unless, of course, you get the dreaded Blue Screen of
> >>Death, which happens all too frequently in WinNT.)
> >>Ok... nuff said.. get an iMac... you'll never go back to Windoze
> >>(except under duress.)
> >
> >An *iMac*? Good God! Why not an Etch-a-Sketch?
> >
> >An iMac looks like you should jam a stick up its bottom and lick it.
>
> I've done that and have had that done to me.
I'm not sure I've seen a thread diverge farther from the original topic.
However it is interesting to see what comes up when Macs are discussed.
Of course, since this divergence relates to obscure sexual practices it
is clearly on topic for AUE - probably more so than the Mac branch.
Thank you for bringing us back to topic, BE.
U
Robert Lieblich
<snip>
> I'm not sure I've seen a thread diverge farther from the original topic.
> However it is interesting to see what comes up when Macs are discussed.
> Of course, since this divergence relates to obscure sexual practices it
> is clearly on topic for AUE - probably more so than the Mac branch.
> Thank you for bringing us back to topic, BE.
BE (Becky Easy) is one of Piddy's many aliases. He's been quite active
around AUE recently, even posting a few things that kinda make sense.
Perhaps we are the Borg and he is being assimilated.
Bob Lieblich
Unna
Mimi Kahn wrote:
>
> On Sat, 30 Oct 1999 17:24:53 -0400, Unna <ucer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Becky Easy wrote:
...snip...
> >> >An iMac looks like you should jam a stick up its bottom and lick it.
> >>
> >> I've done that and have had that done to me.
> >
> >I'm not sure I've seen a thread diverge farther from the original topic.
> > However it is interesting to see what comes up when Macs are discussed.
> > Of course, since this divergence relates to obscure sexual practices it
> >is clearly on topic for AUE - probably more so than the Mac branch.
> >Thank you for bringing us back to topic, BE.
>
> Obscure sexual practices? I was comparing the iMac to a damned
> *Popsicle*.
>
poor choice of analogy, perhaps...;-)
;U
Murray Arnow
>... A poster may choose to publish his name in a
>particular newsgroup. No one else should choose for him. Few people want
>their words and their name bandied about without their knowledge and without
>the ability to object if they are misrepresented.
>
You may not like it, but there's damn little you can do about it. Some of my
posts to other ngs have been incorporated in websites. One post is so out of
context that it is listed as humor, when in fact, it is an example of a change
in language usage and not very funny. I have little recourse under copyright
laws: I believe this is an instance of fair use. But for the most part, I am
complimented that anyone would think that I have said something worth quoting.
Garry J. Vass
writes
>> Obscure sexual practices? I was comparing the iMac to a damned
>> *Popsicle*.
>>
>poor choice of analogy, perhaps...;-)
>
Hi Una!
How's come ya gots two 'n's now in 'Una'? Isn't the female singular,
'Una'?
Anyway, just as a side-note, to be perfectly Multi-pondial about the
whole thing, it's 'ice-lolly', not 'popsicle'.
Garry J. Vass
<ar...@iname.com> writes
>
>You may not like it, but there's damn little you can do about it. Some of my
There *is* something one can do about it.
Let's see what Mike comes up with...
Garry J. Vass
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[snip]
> If I seem ignorant, it's because I'm always being swatted off
> the shoulders of giants.
Hop on, good sir! I have broad shoulders. The view from up here is
delightful.
Question: If a man can have broad shoulders, can a broad have man
shoulders?
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman, Editor
Santa Rosa, CA 95402, USA
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/
Michael West
Willondon Donovan <will...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:381ae79e...@news.golden.net...
> Garry J. Vass wrote:
> > [...]
> > of the original poster. This is not only breach of etiquette, but also
> > demonstrates poor judgement. [...]
>
> I'd never heard this point of protocol before.
>
> newsgroup that's politically or philosophically opposed to one they chose
> to post in.
>
>
> But as general rule, why is it a breach of etiquette?
For the reason you mention: A poster may choose to publish his name in a
particular newsgroup. No one else should choose for him. Few people want
their words and their name bandied about without their knowledge and without
the ability to object if they are misrepresented.
--
Michael West
Elron Xemoo <Fil...@MailCity.Com> wrote in message
news:7vfi59$91o$1...@news.inficad.com...
> text that involves the insertion or deletion of individual characters or
> words.
>
> without making an explicit notation of it.
>
and drawing attention to it by inserting "Sic" or "Whatever the hell that
means" after it in brackets.
Michael West
Garry J. Vass <Ga...@gvass.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:iLdeUSAf...@gvass.demon.co.uk...
Well, there really *isn't*, is there? All the more reason why it should be a
point of etiquette not to repost someone else's words and name to another
group without asking or (at the very least) notifying the originator. I
wasn't addressing a legal question, but rather an issue of consideration for
others.
Michael West
Michael West <n...@home.com> wrote in message
news:euKS3.7717$we.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> >
> Whose paying you to do that? You get much better effect by leaving the
error
> and drawing attention to it by inserting "Sic" or "Whatever the hell that
> means" after it in brackets.
> --
> --
> Michael West
> Melbourne, Australia
>
Like this:
> Whose [sic!] paying you to do that? [Whatever the hell that means!]
Garry J. Vass
<n...@home.com> writes
>
>Well, there really *isn't*, is there? All the more reason why it should be a
>point of etiquette not to repost someone else's words and name to another
Michael,
What a wonderful rebuttal!
Every well-picked word of your posting speaks of a class act; I can't
tell you how gratifying it is to read something like this. Someone who
*cares* about it.
Yet...
Let's wait to see what Mike comes up with.
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>For the reason you mention: A poster may choose to publish his name in a
>particular newsgroup. No one else should choose for him. Few people want
>their words and their name bandied about without their knowledge and without
>the ability to object if they are misrepresented.
"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
Oscar
Charles Riggs
<lieb...@erols.com> wrote:
>It continues to strike me as simple good manners to let someone know
>when his language is being posted outside the group in which he
>participates. I realy don't care about asking permission -- fair use
>allows such quotation. Common courtesy calls for notice.
>
>Bob Lieblich
Several times, I'm fairly sure, I've mentioned to friends in town
words you, and others in this group, have written to see what their
reaction would be. Now, courteous fellow that I am, I see I need give
you notice of this: I can't recall though which quotes - must I keep a
notebook in future?
Charles Riggs
Mike Barnes
>In article <LPZXWCAW$rG4...@exodus.u-net.com>, Mike Barnes
><mi...@senrab.com> writes
>>I agree that it's not always necessary, but I don't think it's always
>>gratuitous. It's not necessary at the start, or at the end, or between
>to be caught on film, IIRC...
Did I miss the posting of the URL?
>Anyway to the matter at hand. I agree that you can wordsmith these
>things much better than I. As always, as ever, would you mind taking a
>go at it?
I'm grateful for the faith you show in my wordsmithing abilities, but I
don't think Simon's in need of any assistance in that respect. Anyway,
the debate still seems to be in the substance department.
Robert Lieblich
If, Charles, you cannot distinguish between posting my language, with
attribution, to a busy newsgroup and discussing it with your friends in
conversation, then I guess you'll have to report everything. Feel free
to use e-mail in my case.
I do thank you for finding what I say of sufficient interest to pass it
on.
Bob
Garry J. Vass
<ri...@RemoveThiseircom.net> writes
>
>Several times, I'm fairly sure, I've mentioned to friends in town
>words you, and others in this group, have written to see what their
Charles,
That's a much more controlled situation in the context of social
ambience, a limited audience, feedback, and the opportunity to clarify
interactively.
In the general sense, casual social intercourse leaves little
opportunity for strange people from East Jesus to jump in with their own
rants, which is a different situation than Usenet.
Garry J. Vass
Garry J. Vass
Doherty <jdoh...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>
>I don't see anything wrong with that, although it requires deleting
>material in units other than whole lines.
>
I think the 'whole lines' issue is centred more around courtesy to news
readers down the line. Altering inside the body of quoted text
confuses, for example, 'Turnpike'; who tends to widow wrap the
attribution. So does deja.
I've also noticed that sometimes deja will display a single attribution
with different colours because it thinks that the widows are inter-
spliced text.
An aesthetics and courtesy thing. It's very ugly to see a screen full
of widow wrapping, and it's twice the length it needs to be.
Garry J. Vass
Perchprism
>From: Robert Lieblich lieb...@erols.com
>Date: Sun, 31 October 1999 08:23 AM EST
>Message-id: <381C42...@erols.com>
>
>Charles Riggs wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 30 Oct 1999 13:14:01 -0400, Robert Lieblich
>> <lieb...@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>> >It continues to strike me as simple good manners to let someone know
>> >when his language is being posted outside the group in which he
>> >participates. I realy don't care about asking permission -- fair use
>> >allows such quotation. Common courtesy calls for notice.
>> >
>> >Bob Lieblich
>>
>> words you, and others in this group, have written to see what their
>> you notice of this: I can't recall though which quotes - must I keep a
>> notebook in future?
>
>If, Charles, you cannot distinguish between posting my language, with
>attribution, to a busy newsgroup and discussing it with your friends in
>conversation, then I guess you'll have to report everything. Feel free
>to use e-mail in my case.
>
>I do thank you for finding what I say of sufficient interest to pass it
>on.
This is as good a place as any to confess that I quoted Lee Rudolph to my wife
yesterday: "Yeah, but who put the ram in the rami lambie ding dong?" Lee ...
you out there? Sorry, old bean, I'd forgotten it was you and failed to give you
credit.
--
Perchprism
(southern New Jersey, near Philadelphia)
Philip 'Yes, that's my address' Newton
Doherty) wrote:
>I would say "sentence," not "line."
I agree.
>For example, if the original post is this:
>
> This sentence spans more than one line of text and I do not wish to
> respond to it for some reason, presumably in good faith. This is the
> sentence to which I'm responding.
>
>I would quote that like this:
>
> > This is the sentence to which I'm responding.
I would sometimes even venture to:
> This is the
> sentence to which I'm responding.
or
> This is the
> sentence to which I'm responding.
(with preference to the former, except with newsreaders that don't
support overstrike.)
Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <nospam...@gmx.li>
Garry J. Vass
<redq...@sfo.sansspam.com> writes
>On Sat, 30 Oct 1999 23:24:57 +0100, "Garry J. Vass"
><Ga...@gvass.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <381B6534...@hotmail.com>, Unna <ucer...@hotmail.com>
>>writes
>>>> Obscure sexual practices? I was comparing the iMac to a damned
>>>> *Popsicle*.
>>>>
>>>poor choice of analogy, perhaps...;-)
>
>Because you did not understand it?
>
>Picture the iMac, semi-transparent, with its fruity little colors. Do
>you understand now?
>
>
Now see what I mean? Here's a typical cock-up. I get the lead
attribution, which is signified by one '>', then it goes to two '>>'
which shows *my* lead attribution which cites Unna's earlier post.
Then it goes to four '>>>>' which is Unna's citation, then back to one
'>' which is RQ's citation responding to the four '>>>>' citation from
Unna's post. But no two '>>' citations anywhere in there.
Sorry to jump from substance to process, RQ. I just wanted to point
that out.
--
Garry J. Vass
Garry J. Vass
<mar...@eepjm.newcastle.edu.au> writes
>
>Mark hasn't been spotted in aue for quite a long time now. Either he's lost
>usenet access, or he's lost interest in aue. For all practical purposes,
>
Peter (greets to Marion also!),
Isn't he at the Biology Department down there with you? Why not just
call him?
--
Garry J. Vass
Becky Easy
>Mimi Kahn wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 30 Oct 1999 17:24:53 -0400, Unna <ucer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Becky Easy wrote:
>...snip...
>> >> >An iMac looks like you should jam a stick up its bottom and lick it.
>> >>
>> >> I've done that and have had that done to me.
>> >
>> >I'm not sure I've seen a thread diverge farther from the original topic.
>> > However it is interesting to see what comes up when Macs are discussed.
>> > Of course, since this divergence relates to obscure sexual practices it
>> >is clearly on topic for AUE - probably more so than the Mac branch.
>> >Thank you for bringing us back to topic, BE.
>>
>> Obscure sexual practices? I was comparing the iMac to a damned
>> *Popsicle*.
>>
>poor choice of analogy, perhaps...;-)
piddyful choice.
piddy
Becky Easy
Queen) wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Oct 1999 23:24:57 +0100, "Garry J. Vass"
><Ga...@gvass.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <381B6534...@hotmail.com>, Unna <ucer...@hotmail.com>
>>writes
>>>> Obscure sexual practices? I was comparing the iMac to a damned
>>>> *Popsicle*.
>>>>
>>>poor choice of analogy, perhaps...;-)
>
>Because you did not understand it?
>
>Picture the iMac, semi-transparent, with its fruity little colors. Do
>you understand now?
>The Red Queen
I always did, but that wasn't as much fun as what I had in mind.
piddy
Brett Paul Dunbar
<nj...@spamfree.cornell.edu> writes
>On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 00:32:28 +0200, shu...@tromso.online.no (Simon R.
>Hughes) wrote:
>
>>My newsreader does not recognise the text as being quoted *without*
>>the presence of the space after the ">". I need more voices on this
>>matter before I can decide whether I should change it or not.
>
>Agent doesn't add any spaces, but recognizes as quoted anything
>beginning with the >. If a space precedes the >, no go.
>
>>Like so.
>> Like so.
>> Like so.
> >Not like so.
> > Not like so.
> > Not like so.
>
>(On my screen, the top three are blue, the bottom three black.)
Turnpike shows them all in the quote colour.
--
Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm
Brett Paul Dunbar
Donna Richoux
> In article <381ea783...@news.sfo.com>, The Red Queen
> <redq...@sfo.sansspam.com> writes
>
> >On Sat, 30 Oct 1999 23:24:57 +0100, "Garry J. Vass"
> ><Ga...@gvass.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>In article <381B6534...@hotmail.com>, Unna <ucer...@hotmail.com>
> >>writes
> >>>> Obscure sexual practices? I was comparing the iMac to a damned
> >>>> *Popsicle*.
> >>>>
> >>>poor choice of analogy, perhaps...;-)
> >
> >Because you did not understand it?
> >
> >Picture the iMac, semi-transparent, with its fruity little colors. Do
> >you understand now?
> >
> >
>
> Now see what I mean? Here's a typical cock-up. I get the lead
> attribution, which is signified by one '>', then it goes to two '>>'
> which shows *my* lead attribution which cites Unna's earlier post.
>
> Then it goes to four '>>>>' which is Unna's citation, then back to one
> '>' which is RQ's citation responding to the four '>>>>' citation from
> Unna's post. But no two '>>' citations anywhere in there.
>
> Sorry to jump from substance to process, RQ. I just wanted to point
> that out.
While we're pointing things out, Garry, I will point out that you
goofed, in your earlier post, by removing Mimi's credit for the line
about the damned popsicle. Is that what is confusing you now?
Uncertainly --- Donna Richoux
Peter Moylan
Must have been two other guys. I'm pretty sure he's not at this university.
Apparently there's a Mark Israel at Flinders University (South Australia),
but I suspect that it's not our Mark.
I'm impressed by Googlescout, by the way. It didn't find Mark for me, but
it did suggest that I might be interested in John Lawler's web page.
--
Peter Moylan pe...@ee.newcastle.edu.au
See http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au for OS/2 information and software
John Doherty
nj...@spamfree.cornell.edu wrote:
| On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 22:12:33 +0000, Brett Paul Dunbar
| <br...@dimetrodon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
|
| >In article <5NwYOKGjd4HcU6...@4ax.com>, Mimi Kahn
| ><nj...@spamfree.cornell.edu> writes
| >>On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 00:32:28 +0200, shu...@tromso.online.no (Simon R.
| >>Hughes) wrote:
| >>
| >>>My newsreader does not recognise the text as being quoted *without*
| >>>the presence of the space after the ">". I need more voices on this
| >>>matter before I can decide whether I should change it or not.
| >>
| >>Agent doesn't add any spaces, but recognizes as quoted anything
| >>beginning with the >. If a space precedes the >, no go.
| >>
| >>>Like so.
| >>> Like so.
| >>> Like so.
| >> >Not like so.
| >> > Not like so.
| >> > Not like so.
| >>
| >>(On my screen, the top three are blue, the bottom three black.)
| >
| > Turnpike shows them all in the quote colour.
|
| That may be because the spaces that had originally preceded the carets
| on the bottom three lines are now gone. Well, they're there, but more
| carets have been inserted in front of the spaces.
First, the character ">" is not a "caret." "^" is a caret. In Unicode, ">"
is known as "GREATER-THAN SIGN." In more colloquial use, it's known as a
"greater than" or as a "right angle bracket." Referring to it as a "caret"
is just wrong.
And second, adapting standards to the idiosyncracies of a particular
application is almost always a mistake, so the way in which a particular
newsreader (Agent, Turnpike, Joe's Spiffy Newsreader, whatever), handles
quoted lines is not of much interest.
--
Mike Barnes
>On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 22:12:33 +0000, Brett Paul Dunbar
><br...@dimetrodon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <5NwYOKGjd4HcU6...@4ax.com>, Mimi Kahn
>><nj...@spamfree.cornell.edu> writes
>>>On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 00:32:28 +0200, shu...@tromso.online.no (Simon R.
>>>Hughes) wrote:
>>>
>>>>My newsreader does not recognise the text as being quoted *without*
>>>>the presence of the space after the ">". I need more voices on this
>>>>matter before I can decide whether I should change it or not.
>>>
>>>Agent doesn't add any spaces, but recognizes as quoted anything
>>>beginning with the >. If a space precedes the >, no go.
>>>
>>>>Like so.
>>>> Like so.
>>>> Like so.
>>> >Not like so.
>>> > Not like so.
>>> > Not like so.
>>>
>>>(On my screen, the top three are blue, the bottom three black.)
>>
>> Turnpike shows them all in the quote colour.
>
>That may be because the spaces that had originally preceded the carets
>on the bottom three lines are now gone. Well, they're there, but more
>carets have been inserted in front of the spaces.
Nice try, but wrong. Turnpike showed them all in blue (my choice of
colour for quoted material) even when there were only spaces before the
">"s, which (ObUsage) I would never call "carets", even though they
might be.
--
Mike Barnes
Garry J. Vass
<pe...@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au> writes
>
>Must have been two other guys. I'm pretty sure he's not at this university.
I think this is my cock-up. It appears that he's at a Biology thingie
in San Diego, which I'll try and reach this afternoon...
--
Garry J. Vass
Bob Cunningham
Moylan) said:
>Garry J. Vass <Ga...@gvass.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <7vc99m$447$1...@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au>, Marion Gevers
>><mar...@eepjm.newcastle.edu.au> writes
>>>Mark hasn't been spotted in aue for quite a long time now. Either he's lost
>>>usenet access, or he's lost interest in aue. For all practical purposes,
>>Peter (greets to Marion also!),
>>Isn't he at the Biology Department down there with you? Why not just
>>call him?
>Must have been two other guys. I'm pretty sure he's not at this university.
>Apparently there's a Mark Israel at Flinders University (South Australia),
>but I suspect that it's not our Mark.
>I'm impressed by Googlescout, by the way. It didn't find Mark for me, but
>it did suggest that I might be interested in John Lawler's web page.
If anyone does happen to come upon Mark Israel's e-mail address at his
present place of employment, you should know that he has asked that it
not be used for AUE-related matters.
The e-mail address that is given in his FAQ, 'mis...@scripps.edu',
still works -- in the sense that mail addressed to it doesn't bounce.
I don't know whether or not he reads mail sent to that address.
Garry J. Vass
<tr...@euronet.nl> writes
>
>While we're pointing things out, Garry, I will point out that you
>goofed, in your earlier post, by removing Mimi's credit for the line
>about the damned popsicle. Is that what is confusing you now?
>
No. And please get your hackles down, Donna, this is not meant to be a
nitpicking cascade.
A citation without an attribution is not a goof, it's normal and
acceptable practice all over the Usenet. Here's an example:
<EXAMPLE>
>>>> This island fortress built by
>>>> nature herself to protect us
>>>> from the plagues and jealousies
>>> of foreign lands...
Now lists Asian food as 10% of its GDP.
</EXAMPLE>
This example shows an unattributed citation and a response to it. No
problems, normal acceptable practice, nobody's feelings can get hurt, no
one can claim to be misrepresented or blind-sided in another news group.
An attribution without a corresponding citation, OTOH, is ill-formed,
and is poor quoting style. Here's an example:
<EXAMPLE>
> Louie said...
>> Dewey said...
>>>> Oh dear!
</EXAMPLE>
This shows two attributions and only one citation. That's cuz we don't
know what Louie said. So the attribution for Louie is superfluous; and
superfluousity is inconsistent with good quoting style.
Or would you agree differently?
--
Garry J. Vass
Bob Cunningham
Gevers) said:
>Simon R. Hughes <shu...@tromso.online.no> a écrit:
>>Where is Mark Israel?
>Mark hasn't been spotted in aue for quite a long time now. Either he's lost
>usenet access, or he's lost interest in aue. For all practical purposes,
>Donna is now the keeper of the FAQ.
>We've kept his big FAQ intact mostly because nobody's had the courage to
>rewrite it.
Mark Israel's AUE FAQ is his intellectual property and there should be
no thought of rewriting it.
>A lot of work went into it, and it would be a pity to lose that.
It will not be lost so long as my interest in AUE continues. I'll
continue to make it available at my Web site even if it's replaced by
other FAQs at the official sites. (I should add that I will
discontinue offering it at my Web site if Mark Israel says that he
doesn't want me to offer it.)
>Nevertheless, there's nothing wrong in principle with revising it as we see fit.
There's a lot wrong with revising it. It's not ours to revise. It's
not AUE's FAQ. It's Mark Israel's FAQ. There is, however, nothing
wrong with supplementing it in a separate document, as I have done
with the AUE FAQ Supplement
(<http://home.earthlink.net/~exw6sxq/skeleton.html>) or creating
another FAQ alongside it.
Mark says in his FAQ:
2. This is in no sense an "official" FAQ file. Feel free to
start your own. I certainly can't stop you.
3. Please don't expect me to add a topic unless (a) you're
willing to contribute the entry for that topic; (b) the
topic has come up at least twice in the newsgroup, or the
entry gives information that cannot readily be found
elsewhere; and (c) if the topic has been controversial in
the newsgroup, your entry attempts to represent
conflicting points of view. Thanks to all who have
contributed!
On 6 October 1999, under the subject line 'Items needed for AUE FAQ
Supplement', I issued a request for contributions to the AUE FAQ
Supplement. I included a suggested list of topics. You can find my
request at Deja with the following URL:
<http://x22.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=533538046&CONTEXT=941462415.621019180>
The response has been disappointingly, but not unexpectedly, small.
Jerry Friedman
> deals with the style of quoting postings in replies that the majority
> of people here appear to prefer.
>
> I would appreciate some feedback: disagreements, suggestions for
> improvements, spelling flames, sheep puns, etc..
[...]
Just to show you that I like the new version, I'm putting brackets
around my ellipsis as you recommend.
However, I have picked one last nit: how about "white space" instead of
"white-space"?
--
Jerry Friedman
jfrE...@nnm.cc.nm.us
i before e
and all the disclaimers
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
a1a5...@sprint.ca
<malgran...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>The e-mail address that is given in his FAQ, 'mis...@scripps.edu',
>still works -- in the sense that mail addressed to it doesn't bounce.
>I don't know whether or not he reads mail sent to that address.
>
>
Why am I not surprised? It *was* you who tried to use it?
Bob Cunningham
I tried to use it in the sense that I sent a test message to it under
the subject line 'testing validity of e-mail address - please ignore'.
As part of a continuing effort to learn of outdated references in Mark
Israel's FAQ, I've sent similar messages to a number of e-mail
addresses that appear there.
Clarence's misguided remarks quoted above are noteworthy only in that
they are written in comprehensible English, something that is not
usually found in a posting from that source.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Elron Xemoo <Fil...@MailCity.Com> wrote in message
> news:7vfi59$91o$1...@news.inficad.com...
> > Garry J. Vass wrote in message <9ykJKIA6...@gvass.demon.co.uk>...
>
> > I mostly agree, though I often correct grammar or punctuation in a
> > quote without making an explicit notation of it.
>
> Whose paying you to do that? You get much better effect by leaving
> the error and drawing attention to it by inserting "Sic" or
> "Whatever the hell that means" after it in brackets.
Van Leunen's advice (from the old-fashioned paper domain) seems
appropriate.
In general, however, "sic" is hostile. To correct an error in a
quotation is merely condescending; to leave it in and sic it is an
attack. Be warned, and do not take up arms unknowingly. Avoid
using "sic" to show how precise and knowledgeable you are, and
above all make sure that the error you point out is really wrong.
_A Handbook for Scholars_, 2e, p. 84
Of course, by "correct an error", she means to substitute the correct
word in brackets.
My own style (in this medium) is to snip at sentence boundaries and
reflow paragraphs, but otherwise leave text unchanged. (Emacs makes
that a trivial operation, even with quote brackets.) The only
"<snip>" I find useful is something like
<snip many points I agree with>
to emphasize that my comments don't mean that I disagree with the post
as a whole. Even this is only occasionally necessary to avoid giving
the wrong impression.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Those who study history are doomed
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |to watch others repeat it.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
protow...@my-deja.com
lieb...@erols.com wrote:
> Mimi Kahn wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 30 Oct 1999 13:22:18 GMT, will...@bigfoot.com (Willondon
> > Donovan) wrote:
> >
> > >Garry J. Vass wrote:
> > >> [...]
> > >> 7. Quoted text from another newsgroup should not disclose the
identity
> > >> of the original poster. This is not only breach of etiquette,
but also
> > >> demonstrates poor judgement. [...]
> > >
> > >Then I suppose it's even more damning to have to ask 'why'?
> > >I'd never heard this point of protocol before.
> >
> > Think back to Bill Palmer, Famous Usenet Writer,
You rang, esteemed sir?
who took posts from
> > aue (and not just aue, of course) and posted them to hell and gone
for
> > his own self-aggrandizement.
Hold on here! The above makes me sound so verbally and or/
idea-deficient that I have to post other people's stuff
around the net just to get read. The reality is quite the
opposite. It is unlikely you can find another frequent
poster with a lower OPW (Other People's Words) count
than mine. I don't need the phrases of Mr. Robert Lieblich
to puff out my articles.
In fact, the posts you still grumble about were made to
two or three other (and equally pertinent) newsgroup forums.
I have explained before that I was making courtesy reposts
to other groups where I had good reason to expect that the
readers would ALSO have enjoyed the article content.
In my view a "courtesy repost" exists for the following
reason: The poster wants to place an article in a group
like alt.english.usage where most regulars seem to frown
on crossposts. But the poster has reason to believe that
people in some other groups would enjoy the post, so he
or she makes reasonable repostings.
As long as the article falls on topic in the second or third
groups, the above is a perfectly responsible practice. Yes,
I am aware that the hoary, half-fossilized Arpanet types will
wave out-dated "Usenet rule books" at you and tell you your
preferred practice wastes bandwidth. However, when you
factor in other concerns, such as follow-up, you can make
an equally good argument that such courtesy reposts actually
SAVE bandwidth instead.
Also, if I may be allowed one small tangent, I will add that
I do not see my role as a newsgroup participant as first
and foremost that of a "bandwidth saver". People who are
here only here to save bandwidth should be true to their
principles and stop posting entirely, that's what *I*
always say!
Anyway, Mr. Lieblich, I think it is unseemly for you to
continue harping on the matter, since I promised you (for
humanitarian purposes regarding your wails, not from moral,
legal or ethical obligation) that I would not repost any of
your words from a.u.e. to another forum without telling you.
I have been true to my word.
More important, I stress again that I did NOT a) tamper
with your quotations b) fail to give you credit for what
you wrote, or c) add misleading comments giving the new
readers a false idea of what you were saying in your
original post. How I wish that the many people who
quote me all the time--without my permission, of course--
would show me the same courtesy reflected in the three
key points of repost consideration that I just summarized.
I stress "without my permission" since I don't want to be
bothered by queries from people who want to quote me from
one newsgroup to another, because I would have to waste a
lot of time on email if I responded to all the possible
requests. (I should add the latter comments are restricted
to not-for-profit or newsgroups ONLY; I DO feel that
permission should be requested before putting the words
of another poster on someone's personal website and I
say that as someone whose name and work has been
exploited on at least one-hundred websites.)
I think your basic problem, Mr. Lieblich, is that your mind
harbors a rather antiquated view of newsgroup interaction
as it generally exists in 1999. Even so, I will continue
to abide by my voluntary promise not to repost your words to
another group without telling you. I can get along fine
withoutthe words of Mr. Robert Lieblich in my articles,
I assure you. Have a WONDERFUL day.
Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer
> > I think it's only polite to *ask* someone before posting his words
to
> > another forum. I think there's an underlying assumption that if the
> > original poster had wanted his words read in, say, alt.bestiality,
he
> > or she would have placed them there.
>
> I recall a little contretemps with Palmer about this. All I wanted
was
> to be told that he had taken postings of mine and put them on other
> groups. Being Palmer, he acted as if I had accused him of dining on
his
> mother's liver.
>
> It continues to strike me as simple good manners to let someone know
> when his language is being posted outside the group in which he
> participates. I realy don't care about asking permission -- fair use
> allows such quotation. Common courtesy calls for notice.
>
> Bob Lieblich
>
Simon R. Hughes
> In article <MPG.12819a0bd...@news.online.no>,
> shu...@tromso.online.no (Simon R. Hughes) wrote:
> > I have partially translated, partially nailed together a web page that
> > deals with the style of quoting postings in replies that the majority
> > of people here appear to prefer.
> >
> > I would appreciate some feedback: disagreements, suggestions for
> > improvements, spelling flames, sheep puns, etc..
>
> [...]
>
> Just to show you that I like the new version, I'm putting brackets
> around my ellipsis as you recommend.
Conformity is good. I got told off about the brackets today (another
context).
> However, I have picked one last nit: how about "white space" instead of
> "white-space"?
I meant to look it up. I forgot. I regret. I will look it up.
--
Simon R. Hughes -- http://sult.8m.com/
Quoting Usenet Articles in Follow-ups
http://sult.8m.com/quote.html
Garry J. Vass
writes
>You rang, esteemed sir?
>
Bzzzzzzt! Time's up. Thanks for dropping by!
And *now* a word from our sponsor, 'my-deja'!
--
Garry J. Vass
Garry J. Vass
<pe...@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au> writes
>>>
>>>usenet access, or he's lost interest in aue. For all practical purposes,
>>>
I called him today and invited him to the boink, and he jotted down the
URL of the page, so we'll see what happens...
--
Garry J. Vass
Robert Lieblich
know and love) wrote:
<huge snip>
[addressing moi:]
> I will continue
> to abide by my voluntary promise not to repost your words to
> another group without telling you. I can get along fine
> withoutthe words of Mr. Robert Lieblich in my articles,
> I assure you. Have a WONDERFUL day.
My sincere thanks to Allah -- and to you -- for this boon. I'll bet if
you offer the same treatment to the others in this group you will be
inundated with requests.
Mr. Robert Lieblich (having a WONDERFUL day)
Donna Richoux
> A citation without an attribution is not a goof, it's normal and
> acceptable practice all over the Usenet. Here's an example:
>
> <EXAMPLE>
>
> >>>> This island fortress built by
> >>>> nature herself to protect us
> >>>> from the plagues and jealousies
> >>> of foreign lands...
> Now lists Asian food as 10% of its GDP.
>
> </EXAMPLE>
>
> This example shows an unattributed citation and a response to it. No
> problems, normal acceptable practice, nobody's feelings can get hurt, no
> one can claim to be misrepresented or blind-sided in another news group.
>
> An attribution without a corresponding citation, OTOH, is ill-formed,
> and is poor quoting style. Here's an example:
>
> <EXAMPLE>
>
> > Louie said...
> >> Dewey said...
> >>>> Oh dear!
>
> </EXAMPLE>
>
> This shows two attributions and only one citation. That's cuz we don't
> know what Louie said. So the attribution for Louie is superfluous; and
> superfluousity is inconsistent with good quoting style.
>
> Or would you agree differently?
I would agree it is bad form to say "Louie said" without having any
words that Louie did say (except "Dewey said") -- this is what I think
you are complaining about. However, I would also say it is bad form to
put what Hughie said without including the fact that Hughie said it --
this is what I said you did. I assumed you did it by mistake, not on
purpose. You say it's common, but I don't see it. Attributions and
quotations go in pairs.
What am I missing here? For what reason would you encourage others to
routinely quote material without citing the author? Especially when the
casual reader who forgets to count arrows will assume that the last
person named was the one who wrote what follows?
-- Donna Richoux
Brian J Goggin
wrote:
[...]
>What am I missing here? For what reason would you encourage others to
>routinely quote material without citing the author? Especially when the
>casual reader who forgets to count arrows will assume that the last
>person named was the one who wrote what follows?
I found myself musing on that very question recently when I snipped an
author's name but left in what that author had said.
Author 1 said something that provided the context for the discussion.
Author 2 replied to Author 1, but Author 2's words, by themselves,
would not have given the context.
I wanted to respond to Author 2 but not to Author 1. I left in Author
1's words to provide context, but deleted Author 1's (lengthy) details
because their inclusion, in my judgement, would have given the
impression that Author 1 was involved in my discussion.
No author had written more than a couple of lines.
I could, instead, have inserted, after Author 2's name, something like
"said, in discussing X".
bjg
a1a5...@sprint.ca
<lieb...@erols.com> wrote:
>Mr. Robert Lieblich (having a WONDERFUL day)
Gawdstrewf! Maybe you are not as bad as you sound.
Robert Lieblich
Oh yes I am, Clarence. Worse, in fact.
As, no doubt, are you.
Charliey
Elron Xemoo
>> Who's paying you to do that? You get much better effect by leaving the
error and drawing attention to it by inserting "Sic" ... after it in
brackets.
No one is paying me to do that. Would you feel better if I hadn't fixed
your misspelling of "who's" as "whose"? I think fixing it makes you look
less stupid. (Though this comment sort of undoes the effect a bit, I have
to admit.)
Elron Xemoo
Simon R. Hughes
[snip]
> If I get time I'll try to compose a couple of examples of well-formed
> Usenet replies, as these might liven things up a bit and help get the
> point across. To keep things simple, I'll e-mail them to you rather
> than posting them here.
Let me see if I can answer this without deleting it (as I have done
twice now, both by mistake).
I think that learning by example is perhaps the most desirable form of
learning on the Internet. Nobody preaching, no-one getting offended by
the preaching, etc..
Annotated examples of Usenet posts, the annotations being held
together with the text by way of hyperlinks (is that word "out" these
days?), is an ideal way of getting the point across. A good example
and a bad example should do wonders.
Michael West
Elron Xemoo <Fil...@MailCity.Com> wrote in message
I had already fixed it in another post. But anything you can do to make me
look less stupid will be greatly appreciated by my wife, who gave up trying
long ago.
My comment was facetious, by the way.
--
--
Michael West
Melbourne, Australia
Michael West
Elron Xemoo <Fil...@MailCity.Com> wrote in message
> "Michael West" <n...@home.com> writes:
>
> >> Whose [sic] paying you to do that?
>
> Is this actually better?
>
>
Yes, and this is even better:
> >> Whose [sic] paying you to do that?[Whatever the hell that means]
You must have missed it when I did it three days ago.
Again, my comment was meant to be facetious. I have no quarrel with
correcting minor typos when quoting.
Simon R. Hughes
> I would appreciate some feedback: disagreements, suggestions for
> improvements, spelling flames, sheep puns, etc..
If all criticism has come in, and there is no more after this posting,
the document http://sult.8m.com/quote.html should be considered to be
in its final form. Feel free to link to it, point at it, force-feed
it, etc., etc., etc..
Thank you all for your input and help.
Mark Brader
properly. Apologies if you have in fact seen it before.]
Garry Vass:
> 1. As a general rule, one should not perform an operation on quoted
> text that involves the insertion or deletion of individual characters or
> words.
No, there are legitimate reasons to do this. The important thing is to
not distort the original poster's sense or context.
One or two reasons have been mentioned in other branches of the thread.
One reason not yet mentioned is to reformat the quoted text into lines
of appropriate length; there is no reason to preserve the line breaks in
the original text unless they were intended to be meaningful.
> 3. The use of the 'snip operator', i.e., "<...snip...>" is gratuitous,
> serving no legitimate function, because it is understood that the astute
> poster has already snipped.
No, it's gratuitious because there is already a punctuation mark for
that purpose, namely the ellipsis. At the beginning or end of a block
of quoted text, though, it's generally gratuitous for the reason that
Garry cites.
The thing I'm surprised not to have seen mentioned about this in an
English usage newsgroup is that quoted text is basically just the same
as the block quotations you'd see in a book, and obeys most of the same
rules. Among other things, this is the ultimate reason why you don't
do it "upside-down". In a book, you'd say something like "John W.
Campbell wrote:" (perhaps identifying the context also), and follow it
with the quote:
The "I didn't think of that" type of failure occurs because
I didn't think of that, and the reason I didn't think of
it is because it never occurred to me. If we'd been able
to think of 'em, we would have.
And then you'd comment on it. See? Just like proper posting style.
Even the use of a "citation character" such as ">" comes from block
quotations. The earliest style on Usenet was to precede each line of
the quoted text with one tab character, which in those days when most
Usenet hosts used UNIX typically showed as an 8-character indentation,
This was a bit too much, and in particular it consumed too much space
when text was doubly quoted (or when text with longish lines was quoted)
and people were too lazy to reformat it. The solution of using "> "
instead (the symbol being chosen to represent the idea of indentation)
followed soon afterwards, and there we are.
--
Mark Brader | "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you
Toronto | do say can and will be misquoted and used against
msbr...@interlog.com | you in a future post." -- Tanja Cooper, misquoted
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Perchprism
>From: shu...@tromso.online.no (Simon R. Hughes)
>Date: Thu, 04 November 1999 08:44 PM EST
>Message-id: <MPG.128c54323...@news.online.no>
>
>Thus spake Simon R. Hughes, shu...@tromso.online.no:
>
>> I would appreciate some feedback: disagreements, suggestions for
>> improvements, spelling flames, sheep puns, etc..
>
>If all criticism has come in, and there is no more after this posting,
>the document http://sult.8m.com/quote.html should be considered to be
>in its final form. Feel free to link to it, point at it, force-feed
>it, etc., etc., etc..
>
>Thank you all for your input and help
"suggested style for Usenet articles", maybe? "Style of" threw me for a second.
"quoted, rather than original, text" I think you need both commas or none. You
do mean "quoted text, not original text", right?
Thank you, Simon.
--
Perchprism
(southern New Jersey, near Philadelphia)
Simon R. Hughes
> Simon wrote:
> >From: shu...@tromso.online.no (Simon R. Hughes)
> >Date: Thu, 04 November 1999 08:44 PM EST
> >Message-id: <MPG.128c54323...@news.online.no>
> >
> >Thus spake Simon R. Hughes, shu...@tromso.online.no:
> >
> >> I would appreciate some feedback: disagreements, suggestions for
> >> improvements, spelling flames, sheep puns, etc..
> >
> >If all criticism has come in, and there is no more after this posting,
> >the document http://sult.8m.com/quote.html should be considered to be
> >in its final form. Feel free to link to it, point at it, force-feed
> >it, etc., etc., etc..
> >
> >Thank you all for your input and help
>
> "suggested style for Usenet articles", maybe? "Style of" threw me for a second.
The prepositions are the first casualties of language confusion.
> "quoted, rather than original, text" I think you need both commas or none. You
> do mean "quoted text, not original text", right?
Not a major parenthetical phrase, so I have taken out the errant
comma.
Thanks.