1  2  |   Order by index

Jul 23, 2003, 4:37pm

Well if you don't want to get your posts across to those who are reading,
then more power to ya. :)

Chris

[View Quote]

Jul 23, 2003, 4:38pm

[View Quote] Invest in a scroll mouse, it'll be the best $20 you ever spent on a
computer product.

--
--Bowen--

No of SETI units returned: 41
Processing time: 31 days, 9 hours.
(Total hours: 753)
www.setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu

Jul 23, 2003, 4:43pm

Already have one. Why should I do work with my fingers so I can read
something posted by you? That's rather backwards, I think. If you want
people to read, then don't expect them to have to do anything to get to
them. I usually just skip over a post that doesn't have anything at the
top. This is a newsgroup, not a text-book. I'm not inclined, nor do I have
the time, to read everything.

Chris

[View Quote]

Jul 23, 2003, 4:45pm

[View Quote] Then you're simply not efficient if you cannot use the means available
to you after you click on a post (and efficently waste energy at
accomplishing nothing). Stop reading my posts if I'm forcing you to
burn too many calories or cost you too many pennies for the megawatts
you use.

--
--Bowen--

No of SETI units returned: 41
Processing time: 31 days, 9 hours.
(Total hours: 753)
www.setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu

Jul 23, 2003, 4:49pm

It's your problem, not mine. That's all I'm saying. If you don't want
everyone to hear what you have to say, that's up to you.

Chris

[View Quote]

Jul 23, 2003, 4:52pm

[View Quote] Well, if your resolution is set at 640x480 (antiquated according to
me... since bottom posting and USENET are to you) there's going to be
little chance of you seeing anything of value at first entry into a
post. Otherwise, most of the time unless you don't run a window
maximized, you should see everything.

That is to say, if you don't run your window maximized, it's _your_
problem you don't see it when you double click.

Do you write in cursive or do you print?

--
--Bowen--

No of SETI units returned: 41
Processing time: 31 days, 9 hours.
(Total hours: 753)
www.setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu

Jul 23, 2003, 8:04pm

[View Quote] > One more reason to not worry about USENET standards, then. :)
>
> Don't get me wrong, I can understand why some are in place (i.e. Not
> posting in HTML, not attaching binaries, etc.), but some are just too
> trivial to pop a blood vessel over. :P
>

<snip>
I don't want to argue but <and this message is to sw chris too> when was the last time you read the NG charter?
Excerpt to refresh your memory:

"News.activeworlds.com/community newsgroup is for anyone who is interested
in AW and who can follow Usenet newsgroup netiquette .... "


--
Andras
"It's MY computer" (tm Steve Gibson)

Jul 23, 2003, 8:11pm

[View Quote] Oh, low blow by Andras. That was good. ;)

--
--Bowen--

No of SETI units returned: 44
Processing time: 36 days, 0 hours.
(Total hours: 864)
www.setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu

Jul 23, 2003, 9:41pm

What the hell? Have you even used Outlook Express?

Chris

[View Quote]

Jul 23, 2003, 9:45pm

But in my brief defense of top-posters, the charter does not say that one
MUST follow usenet netiquette. You don't see anyone getting banned over
this, do you? Top-posting is too silly an offense to be unenforcable. Your
point is thus irrelevant.

Bowen you're absolutely right. Post at the bottom if you like. But Just In
and I are going to just skip over your posts. Simple as that. Don't like
it, post at the top. We're not changing for you. And you certainly don't
have to change for us. It would be your benefit to change to top posting.
Not ours.

Chris

[View Quote]

Jul 23, 2003, 10:50pm

See, when I hear the word "netiquette", I think of "actions on the net
that are considerate of other posters/readers," not "a set of rules that
must be followed to the letter." That includes the No-HTML rule and the
No-Binaries rule, but I don't see how bottom-posting would fall under
that category. As I stated before, bottom vs. top posting is more a
question of style than of consideration. In fact, I would think that top
posting would be the more considerate of the two options, as it requires
the reader to do less work to read what you wrote.

But hey, that's just how I roll. Maybe you think you're doing your
readers a valuable service by making them scroll to read your post. I
never claimed to understand some of the USENET "logic." *shrug*

[View Quote] [View Quote] --
Goober King
Inane and arcane
awnews at awnews.org

Jul 23, 2003, 11:50pm

[View Quote] > See, when I hear the word "netiquette", I think of "actions on the net
> that are considerate of other posters/readers," not "a set of rules that
> must be followed to the letter." That includes the No-HTML rule and the
> No-Binaries rule, but I don't see how bottom-posting would fall under
> that category. As I stated before, bottom vs. top posting is more a
> question of style than of consideration. In fact, I would think that top
> posting would be the more considerate of the two options, as it requires
> the reader to do less work to read what you wrote.
>
> But hey, that's just how I roll. Maybe you think you're doing your
> readers a valuable service by making them scroll to read your post. I
> never claimed to understand some of the USENET "logic." *shrug*
>
>

<snip>

The logic is clear behind it:
You can't expect the reader to read the previous post in the thread you are replying to.
It is a common courtesy to snip irrelevant info from the post and reply at the bottom, so the reader is able to follow what you are replying to and has no need to read another post.

Anyway - I won't argue more and will still bottom post (with proper snipping!). If you don't like it ... you'll miss the wisdom of an oldtimer :)

--
Andras
"It's MY computer" (tm Steve Gibson)

Jul 24, 2003, 3:33am

[View Quote] I, somehow, am not saddend by the loss of Just In, or your, reading of
my posts. Somehow.

--
--Bowen--

No of SETI units returned: 44
Processing time: 36 days, 0 hours.
(Total hours: 864)
www.setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu

Jul 24, 2003, 3:34am

[View Quote] And the trouble-making of "the kid".

--
--Bowen--

No of SETI units returned: 44
Processing time: 36 days, 0 hours.
(Total hours: 864)
www.setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu

Jul 24, 2003, 3:35am

[View Quote] Have you used other newsreaders? See, this is why top posting is a
problem. I don't _exactly_ know what the hell you're talking about in
my post. Snip all relevent information or inline post. Please.

--
--Bowen--

No of SETI units returned: 44
Processing time: 36 days, 0 hours.
(Total hours: 864)
www.setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu

Jul 24, 2003, 9:27am

"sw chris" <chrisw10 at skywalkeronline.net> wrote in
news:3f1f1d39$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com:

> What the hell? Have you even used Outlook Express?

He has, I have. Been there, done that. Now we've moved on to quality
newsreaders. You should try it too sometime. If you're so annoyed by bottom
posting, I recommend XNews, it will allow you to skip the quoting by the
press of a button:
http://kahnews.cjb.net/misc/xnews1.png

XNews site:
http://xnews.newsguy.com/

It's not like it hurts our feelings knowing you and Just In aren't going to
read our posts because you're too stubborn to even listen to the arguments
in favour of bottom posting.

KAH

Jul 24, 2003, 9:32am

"goober king" <awnews at awnews.org> wrote in
news:3f1eba12$2 at server1.Activeworlds.com:

> And as for any other newsgroups you may frequent, I highly doubt
> they're *that* anal about top vs. bottom posting, especially with the
> wide proliferation of OE users who have no choice in the matter. If
> they can put up with it, so can you.

They don't put up with it. They beat the shit out of the person verbally,
then give out the link to the OE-quotefix, an injection-based (I think) app
that allows you to bottom post and use proper signature delimiters (dash-
dash-space) in OE.

I frequent alt.php and comp.lang.php. If I ever were to top post there, all
the regulars would go crazy at me. The same would happen in nearly any
other USENET group. So yes, they *are* that anal about it. With reason
(mostly).

KAH

Jul 24, 2003, 12:28pm

*smirk* I'm sorry, but there's absolutely *no* good reason to get anal
over something as trivial as this. If you want to bottom post, that's
your preference, but to somehow argue it as better as if it were a
proven fact is utterly stupid. As I've said repeatedly in this thread,
it is a question of style, nothing more. Anyone who busts a gasket over
something like this really needs to get out more (which is one of the
reasons I avoid USENET, as it appears to be full of people like this).

[View Quote] > "goober king" <awnews at awnews.org> wrote in
> news:3f1eba12$2 at server1.Activeworlds.com:
>
>
>
>
> They don't put up with it. They beat the shit out of the person verbally,
> then give out the link to the OE-quotefix, an injection-based (I think) app
> that allows you to bottom post and use proper signature delimiters (dash-
> dash-space) in OE.
>
> I frequent alt.php and comp.lang.php. If I ever were to top post there, all
> the regulars would go crazy at me. The same would happen in nearly any
> other USENET group. So yes, they *are* that anal about it. With reason
> (mostly).
>
> KAH

--
Goober King
Anal retentive
awnews at awnews.org

Jul 24, 2003, 1:28pm

[View Quote] I agree. However, when people go telling someone they won't read a post because they're too lazy to scroll a few lines it makes them sound pretty weird :)

--
-Agent1

1  2  |   Order by index