GUESS WHAT?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ot
On 8 Apr 2005 09:32:59 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>
>Andy Turner wrote:
>> On 7 Apr 2005 21:46:48 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Dennis W wrote:
>> >
>> >> Where can I get a copy of newsgroup etiquette.
>> >
>> >Search for it using Google. Use the parameter "top-posting". Also
>> >"netiquette".
>> >
>> >It'll explain why it's rude and lazy.
>>
>> Why don't *you* explain? You can quote these sites it you wish.
>
>Because they are already explained in detail on those sites. No need
>for me to re-type the stuff.
So now who's lazy? All you have to do is cut and paste and also
perhaps offer *your* opinion (rather than someone else's that you've
just read).
>> One thing to bear in mind. Just because someone writes their opinion
>> in HTML and posts it on a site, doesn't give it any more weight or
>> make it any more correct than anything anyone might write here.
>
>If there was anywhere on the web that actually said that top-posting
>was preferrable, or even an acceptable alternative, then you might have
>a point.
If I went off and wrote it, would it give it any more authority or
gravitas than what I'm saying here? Obviously not. So perhaps consider
that when reading what other people put into HTML.
> Almost all folks who write FAQs and the like ask folks to
> intersperse or bottom-post.
Yes, the types of people that whine about it are also the types of
people that run off and create HTML pages about it - it's just another
form of whining. The two go hand in hand. Top-posters generally aren't
so .
You could argue that the prevalence of top-posting comes from the
demographics of usenet users having changed over the years. They're
not the sorts who are about to start creating websites to back up
their preferences - they just get on with it.
> You can argue until you're blue in the face about top-posting being
> acceptable. But in the end, there's nothing really that supports that
> view
How about the legions of people that use it and have no problem with
it? It's obviously perfectly acceptable to them. So your assertion
"there's nothing really that supports that view", is totally false.
> either in official FAQs
There are no "official" FAQs. No-one who uses usenet has to adhere to
any official governing body and therefore no-one is in any position to
create anything "official".
> guides to netiquette
Which are simply people's preferences in HTML form of course.
> or normal logic.
Name me one form of communication that existed before usenet/email
where what someone said is quoted back at them by the respondent
before they say their reply.
>I will continue thinking that top-posters are lazy and rude,
It's lazy that you can only deal with one style of post.
It's rude that you expect everyone else to deal with this laziness by
only posting in your preferred style.
> and not one word of your opinion on the matter will change that
> assessment.
Why then, when you're willing to state that you will not change your
mind regardless of anything that I might go to say, should anyone else
change their preferences when you ask them to?
If you're not willing to listen to other people, then you'll do well
to convince anyone that they should listen to you.
>Since you must have the last word on this, please do so.
Hmmm... why must this be about having the last word? It never has been
for me. In fact, I'd welcome you to actually put together a decent
reply to my points rather than just snipping them all.
andyt
>
>Andy Turner wrote:
>> On 7 Apr 2005 21:46:48 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Dennis W wrote:
>> >
>> >> Where can I get a copy of newsgroup etiquette.
>> >
>> >Search for it using Google. Use the parameter "top-posting". Also
>> >"netiquette".
>> >
>> >It'll explain why it's rude and lazy.
>>
>> Why don't *you* explain? You can quote these sites it you wish.
>
>Because they are already explained in detail on those sites. No need
>for me to re-type the stuff.
So now who's lazy? All you have to do is cut and paste and also
perhaps offer *your* opinion (rather than someone else's that you've
just read).
>> One thing to bear in mind. Just because someone writes their opinion
>> in HTML and posts it on a site, doesn't give it any more weight or
>> make it any more correct than anything anyone might write here.
>
>If there was anywhere on the web that actually said that top-posting
>was preferrable, or even an acceptable alternative, then you might have
>a point.
If I went off and wrote it, would it give it any more authority or
gravitas than what I'm saying here? Obviously not. So perhaps consider
that when reading what other people put into HTML.
> Almost all folks who write FAQs and the like ask folks to
> intersperse or bottom-post.
Yes, the types of people that whine about it are also the types of
people that run off and create HTML pages about it - it's just another
form of whining. The two go hand in hand. Top-posters generally aren't
so .
You could argue that the prevalence of top-posting comes from the
demographics of usenet users having changed over the years. They're
not the sorts who are about to start creating websites to back up
their preferences - they just get on with it.
> You can argue until you're blue in the face about top-posting being
> acceptable. But in the end, there's nothing really that supports that
> view
How about the legions of people that use it and have no problem with
it? It's obviously perfectly acceptable to them. So your assertion
"there's nothing really that supports that view", is totally false.
> either in official FAQs
There are no "official" FAQs. No-one who uses usenet has to adhere to
any official governing body and therefore no-one is in any position to
create anything "official".
> guides to netiquette
Which are simply people's preferences in HTML form of course.
> or normal logic.
Name me one form of communication that existed before usenet/email
where what someone said is quoted back at them by the respondent
before they say their reply.
>I will continue thinking that top-posters are lazy and rude,
It's lazy that you can only deal with one style of post.
It's rude that you expect everyone else to deal with this laziness by
only posting in your preferred style.
> and not one word of your opinion on the matter will change that
> assessment.
Why then, when you're willing to state that you will not change your
mind regardless of anything that I might go to say, should anyone else
change their preferences when you ask them to?
If you're not willing to listen to other people, then you'll do well
to convince anyone that they should listen to you.
>Since you must have the last word on this, please do so.
Hmmm... why must this be about having the last word? It never has been
for me. In fact, I'd welcome you to actually put together a decent
reply to my points rather than just snipping them all.
andyt
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ot
On 8 Apr 2005 09:32:59 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>
>Andy Turner wrote:
>> On 7 Apr 2005 21:46:48 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Dennis W wrote:
>> >
>> >> Where can I get a copy of newsgroup etiquette.
>> >
>> >Search for it using Google. Use the parameter "top-posting". Also
>> >"netiquette".
>> >
>> >It'll explain why it's rude and lazy.
>>
>> Why don't *you* explain? You can quote these sites it you wish.
>
>Because they are already explained in detail on those sites. No need
>for me to re-type the stuff.
So now who's lazy? All you have to do is cut and paste and also
perhaps offer *your* opinion (rather than someone else's that you've
just read).
>> One thing to bear in mind. Just because someone writes their opinion
>> in HTML and posts it on a site, doesn't give it any more weight or
>> make it any more correct than anything anyone might write here.
>
>If there was anywhere on the web that actually said that top-posting
>was preferrable, or even an acceptable alternative, then you might have
>a point.
If I went off and wrote it, would it give it any more authority or
gravitas than what I'm saying here? Obviously not. So perhaps consider
that when reading what other people put into HTML.
> Almost all folks who write FAQs and the like ask folks to
> intersperse or bottom-post.
Yes, the types of people that whine about it are also the types of
people that run off and create HTML pages about it - it's just another
form of whining. The two go hand in hand. Top-posters generally aren't
so .
You could argue that the prevalence of top-posting comes from the
demographics of usenet users having changed over the years. They're
not the sorts who are about to start creating websites to back up
their preferences - they just get on with it.
> You can argue until you're blue in the face about top-posting being
> acceptable. But in the end, there's nothing really that supports that
> view
How about the legions of people that use it and have no problem with
it? It's obviously perfectly acceptable to them. So your assertion
"there's nothing really that supports that view", is totally false.
> either in official FAQs
There are no "official" FAQs. No-one who uses usenet has to adhere to
any official governing body and therefore no-one is in any position to
create anything "official".
> guides to netiquette
Which are simply people's preferences in HTML form of course.
> or normal logic.
Name me one form of communication that existed before usenet/email
where what someone said is quoted back at them by the respondent
before they say their reply.
>I will continue thinking that top-posters are lazy and rude,
It's lazy that you can only deal with one style of post.
It's rude that you expect everyone else to deal with this laziness by
only posting in your preferred style.
> and not one word of your opinion on the matter will change that
> assessment.
Why then, when you're willing to state that you will not change your
mind regardless of anything that I might go to say, should anyone else
change their preferences when you ask them to?
If you're not willing to listen to other people, then you'll do well
to convince anyone that they should listen to you.
>Since you must have the last word on this, please do so.
Hmmm... why must this be about having the last word? It never has been
for me. In fact, I'd welcome you to actually put together a decent
reply to my points rather than just snipping them all.
andyt
>
>Andy Turner wrote:
>> On 7 Apr 2005 21:46:48 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Dennis W wrote:
>> >
>> >> Where can I get a copy of newsgroup etiquette.
>> >
>> >Search for it using Google. Use the parameter "top-posting". Also
>> >"netiquette".
>> >
>> >It'll explain why it's rude and lazy.
>>
>> Why don't *you* explain? You can quote these sites it you wish.
>
>Because they are already explained in detail on those sites. No need
>for me to re-type the stuff.
So now who's lazy? All you have to do is cut and paste and also
perhaps offer *your* opinion (rather than someone else's that you've
just read).
>> One thing to bear in mind. Just because someone writes their opinion
>> in HTML and posts it on a site, doesn't give it any more weight or
>> make it any more correct than anything anyone might write here.
>
>If there was anywhere on the web that actually said that top-posting
>was preferrable, or even an acceptable alternative, then you might have
>a point.
If I went off and wrote it, would it give it any more authority or
gravitas than what I'm saying here? Obviously not. So perhaps consider
that when reading what other people put into HTML.
> Almost all folks who write FAQs and the like ask folks to
> intersperse or bottom-post.
Yes, the types of people that whine about it are also the types of
people that run off and create HTML pages about it - it's just another
form of whining. The two go hand in hand. Top-posters generally aren't
so .
You could argue that the prevalence of top-posting comes from the
demographics of usenet users having changed over the years. They're
not the sorts who are about to start creating websites to back up
their preferences - they just get on with it.
> You can argue until you're blue in the face about top-posting being
> acceptable. But in the end, there's nothing really that supports that
> view
How about the legions of people that use it and have no problem with
it? It's obviously perfectly acceptable to them. So your assertion
"there's nothing really that supports that view", is totally false.
> either in official FAQs
There are no "official" FAQs. No-one who uses usenet has to adhere to
any official governing body and therefore no-one is in any position to
create anything "official".
> guides to netiquette
Which are simply people's preferences in HTML form of course.
> or normal logic.
Name me one form of communication that existed before usenet/email
where what someone said is quoted back at them by the respondent
before they say their reply.
>I will continue thinking that top-posters are lazy and rude,
It's lazy that you can only deal with one style of post.
It's rude that you expect everyone else to deal with this laziness by
only posting in your preferred style.
> and not one word of your opinion on the matter will change that
> assessment.
Why then, when you're willing to state that you will not change your
mind regardless of anything that I might go to say, should anyone else
change their preferences when you ask them to?
If you're not willing to listen to other people, then you'll do well
to convince anyone that they should listen to you.
>Since you must have the last word on this, please do so.
Hmmm... why must this be about having the last word? It never has been
for me. In fact, I'd welcome you to actually put together a decent
reply to my points rather than just snipping them all.
andyt
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ot
On 8 Apr 2005 09:32:59 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>
>Andy Turner wrote:
>> On 7 Apr 2005 21:46:48 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Dennis W wrote:
>> >
>> >> Where can I get a copy of newsgroup etiquette.
>> >
>> >Search for it using Google. Use the parameter "top-posting". Also
>> >"netiquette".
>> >
>> >It'll explain why it's rude and lazy.
>>
>> Why don't *you* explain? You can quote these sites it you wish.
>
>Because they are already explained in detail on those sites. No need
>for me to re-type the stuff.
So now who's lazy? All you have to do is cut and paste and also
perhaps offer *your* opinion (rather than someone else's that you've
just read).
>> One thing to bear in mind. Just because someone writes their opinion
>> in HTML and posts it on a site, doesn't give it any more weight or
>> make it any more correct than anything anyone might write here.
>
>If there was anywhere on the web that actually said that top-posting
>was preferrable, or even an acceptable alternative, then you might have
>a point.
If I went off and wrote it, would it give it any more authority or
gravitas than what I'm saying here? Obviously not. So perhaps consider
that when reading what other people put into HTML.
> Almost all folks who write FAQs and the like ask folks to
> intersperse or bottom-post.
Yes, the types of people that whine about it are also the types of
people that run off and create HTML pages about it - it's just another
form of whining. The two go hand in hand. Top-posters generally aren't
so .
You could argue that the prevalence of top-posting comes from the
demographics of usenet users having changed over the years. They're
not the sorts who are about to start creating websites to back up
their preferences - they just get on with it.
> You can argue until you're blue in the face about top-posting being
> acceptable. But in the end, there's nothing really that supports that
> view
How about the legions of people that use it and have no problem with
it? It's obviously perfectly acceptable to them. So your assertion
"there's nothing really that supports that view", is totally false.
> either in official FAQs
There are no "official" FAQs. No-one who uses usenet has to adhere to
any official governing body and therefore no-one is in any position to
create anything "official".
> guides to netiquette
Which are simply people's preferences in HTML form of course.
> or normal logic.
Name me one form of communication that existed before usenet/email
where what someone said is quoted back at them by the respondent
before they say their reply.
>I will continue thinking that top-posters are lazy and rude,
It's lazy that you can only deal with one style of post.
It's rude that you expect everyone else to deal with this laziness by
only posting in your preferred style.
> and not one word of your opinion on the matter will change that
> assessment.
Why then, when you're willing to state that you will not change your
mind regardless of anything that I might go to say, should anyone else
change their preferences when you ask them to?
If you're not willing to listen to other people, then you'll do well
to convince anyone that they should listen to you.
>Since you must have the last word on this, please do so.
Hmmm... why must this be about having the last word? It never has been
for me. In fact, I'd welcome you to actually put together a decent
reply to my points rather than just snipping them all.
andyt
>
>Andy Turner wrote:
>> On 7 Apr 2005 21:46:48 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Dennis W wrote:
>> >
>> >> Where can I get a copy of newsgroup etiquette.
>> >
>> >Search for it using Google. Use the parameter "top-posting". Also
>> >"netiquette".
>> >
>> >It'll explain why it's rude and lazy.
>>
>> Why don't *you* explain? You can quote these sites it you wish.
>
>Because they are already explained in detail on those sites. No need
>for me to re-type the stuff.
So now who's lazy? All you have to do is cut and paste and also
perhaps offer *your* opinion (rather than someone else's that you've
just read).
>> One thing to bear in mind. Just because someone writes their opinion
>> in HTML and posts it on a site, doesn't give it any more weight or
>> make it any more correct than anything anyone might write here.
>
>If there was anywhere on the web that actually said that top-posting
>was preferrable, or even an acceptable alternative, then you might have
>a point.
If I went off and wrote it, would it give it any more authority or
gravitas than what I'm saying here? Obviously not. So perhaps consider
that when reading what other people put into HTML.
> Almost all folks who write FAQs and the like ask folks to
> intersperse or bottom-post.
Yes, the types of people that whine about it are also the types of
people that run off and create HTML pages about it - it's just another
form of whining. The two go hand in hand. Top-posters generally aren't
so .
You could argue that the prevalence of top-posting comes from the
demographics of usenet users having changed over the years. They're
not the sorts who are about to start creating websites to back up
their preferences - they just get on with it.
> You can argue until you're blue in the face about top-posting being
> acceptable. But in the end, there's nothing really that supports that
> view
How about the legions of people that use it and have no problem with
it? It's obviously perfectly acceptable to them. So your assertion
"there's nothing really that supports that view", is totally false.
> either in official FAQs
There are no "official" FAQs. No-one who uses usenet has to adhere to
any official governing body and therefore no-one is in any position to
create anything "official".
> guides to netiquette
Which are simply people's preferences in HTML form of course.
> or normal logic.
Name me one form of communication that existed before usenet/email
where what someone said is quoted back at them by the respondent
before they say their reply.
>I will continue thinking that top-posters are lazy and rude,
It's lazy that you can only deal with one style of post.
It's rude that you expect everyone else to deal with this laziness by
only posting in your preferred style.
> and not one word of your opinion on the matter will change that
> assessment.
Why then, when you're willing to state that you will not change your
mind regardless of anything that I might go to say, should anyone else
change their preferences when you ask them to?
If you're not willing to listen to other people, then you'll do well
to convince anyone that they should listen to you.
>Since you must have the last word on this, please do so.
Hmmm... why must this be about having the last word? It never has been
for me. In fact, I'd welcome you to actually put together a decent
reply to my points rather than just snipping them all.
andyt
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GUESS WHAT?
> Since when has Microsoft ever produced a 'nice piece of software'?
>
Good point.
>
> There are a number of mail and newsreaders around which do encourage
> netiquette, by meeting the requirements of GNKSA) Good NetKeeping Seal
> of Approval). The only such package, for a Windows platform, of which I
> have any knowledge is Gemini -
> http://www.intellegit.com/software/gemini/
>
> I have been using the Messenger Pro software, which spawned Gemini, for
> many years.
Will take a look at this package.
Thanks, Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GUESS WHAT?
> Since when has Microsoft ever produced a 'nice piece of software'?
>
Good point.
>
> There are a number of mail and newsreaders around which do encourage
> netiquette, by meeting the requirements of GNKSA) Good NetKeeping Seal
> of Approval). The only such package, for a Windows platform, of which I
> have any knowledge is Gemini -
> http://www.intellegit.com/software/gemini/
>
> I have been using the Messenger Pro software, which spawned Gemini, for
> many years.
Will take a look at this package.
Thanks, Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GUESS WHAT?
> Since when has Microsoft ever produced a 'nice piece of software'?
>
Good point.
>
> There are a number of mail and newsreaders around which do encourage
> netiquette, by meeting the requirements of GNKSA) Good NetKeeping Seal
> of Approval). The only such package, for a Windows platform, of which I
> have any knowledge is Gemini -
> http://www.intellegit.com/software/gemini/
>
> I have been using the Messenger Pro software, which spawned Gemini, for
> many years.
Will take a look at this package.
Thanks, Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GUESS WHAT?
> Not your's, unfortunately.
>
> Here ya go:
>
> http://www.snapfiles.com/get/oequotefix.html
>
Never to be underestimated, but are you completely certain this is going to
meet all of your exacting demands?
>
> Here ya go:
>
> http://www.snapfiles.com/get/oequotefix.html
>
Never to be underestimated, but are you completely certain this is going to
meet all of your exacting demands?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GUESS WHAT?
> Not your's, unfortunately.
>
> Here ya go:
>
> http://www.snapfiles.com/get/oequotefix.html
>
Never to be underestimated, but are you completely certain this is going to
meet all of your exacting demands?
>
> Here ya go:
>
> http://www.snapfiles.com/get/oequotefix.html
>
Never to be underestimated, but are you completely certain this is going to
meet all of your exacting demands?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GUESS WHAT?
> Not your's, unfortunately.
>
> Here ya go:
>
> http://www.snapfiles.com/get/oequotefix.html
>
Never to be underestimated, but are you completely certain this is going to
meet all of your exacting demands?
>
> Here ya go:
>
> http://www.snapfiles.com/get/oequotefix.html
>
Never to be underestimated, but are you completely certain this is going to
meet all of your exacting demands?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GUESS WHAT?
JP Roberts wrote:
> > Not your's, unfortunately.
> >
> > Here ya go:
> >
> > http://www.snapfiles.com/get/oequotefix.html
> >
>
> Never to be underestimated, but are you completely certain this is
going to
> meet all of your exacting demands?
Hmm, you seemed to throw up your hands in defeat at not having the
software do *all* of your thinking for you, and I help out by supplying
you with something to help out.
Uneducated rudeness is easily excused. Purposeful rudeness (along with
purposeful ignorance) has no excuse.
Your sarcasm is noted - it is lucky for both of us that I have not
actually demanded anything. Lord help *anyone* who expresses an
opinion in usenet, huh?
Again, you're welcome, and BTW, thank you for your proper quoting and
posting. I actually *do* appreciate readable posts.
E.P.
