Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 18:38:08 +0100, Peter Bell <peter@invalid.org.uk>
wrote: >In message <de9i51tcb1qq82psktn4j5ebpta7658j5p@4ax.com> > Andy Turner <andyt@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 14:40:13 +0200, Arne <user@domain.invalid> wrote: >> >Little guideness (also in my sig): >> >http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post >> >> These are only someone's opinions put down in HTML. Bear this in mind. > >Really? Is that why it quotes guidelines from Microsoft and from >RFC1855? (a) What jursdiction do Microsoft have here? None. (b) IIRC RFC1855 makes a pasing reference to posting styles and merely makes a little suggestion rather than try and enforce any rules. (c) And of course RFC1855 was written decades ago and merely represents the opinions of those around at the time. andyt |
Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
In message <b99k515ukgupl0c4ultbplql9jfva8f6v9@4ax.com>
Andy Turner <andyt@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: > On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 18:38:08 +0100, Peter Bell <peter@invalid.org.uk> > wrote: > > >In message <de9i51tcb1qq82psktn4j5ebpta7658j5p@4ax.com> > > Andy Turner <andyt@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 14:40:13 +0200, Arne <user@domain.invalid> wrote: > >> >Little guideness (also in my sig): > >> >http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post > >> > >> These are only someone's opinions put down in HTML. Bear this in mind. > > > >Really? Is that why it quotes guidelines from Microsoft and from > >RFC1855? > > (a) What jursdiction do Microsoft have here? None. No, I quite agree. I was replying to your assertion that the guidelines given on the web page were one person's opinions. I clearly proved that this is untrue! > (b) IIRC RFC1855 makes a pasing reference to posting styles and merely > makes a little suggestion rather than try and enforce any rules. > (c) And of course RFC1855 was written decades ago and merely > represents the opinions of those around at the time. However, the RFC system has a well proven history of updates by revision and superseding documents when changes are required - is RFC1855 superseded? -- Peter Bell (Note Spamtrap - To reply, replace 'invalid' with 'bellfamily') |
Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
In message <b99k515ukgupl0c4ultbplql9jfva8f6v9@4ax.com>
Andy Turner <andyt@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: > On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 18:38:08 +0100, Peter Bell <peter@invalid.org.uk> > wrote: > > >In message <de9i51tcb1qq82psktn4j5ebpta7658j5p@4ax.com> > > Andy Turner <andyt@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 14:40:13 +0200, Arne <user@domain.invalid> wrote: > >> >Little guideness (also in my sig): > >> >http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post > >> > >> These are only someone's opinions put down in HTML. Bear this in mind. > > > >Really? Is that why it quotes guidelines from Microsoft and from > >RFC1855? > > (a) What jursdiction do Microsoft have here? None. No, I quite agree. I was replying to your assertion that the guidelines given on the web page were one person's opinions. I clearly proved that this is untrue! > (b) IIRC RFC1855 makes a pasing reference to posting styles and merely > makes a little suggestion rather than try and enforce any rules. > (c) And of course RFC1855 was written decades ago and merely > represents the opinions of those around at the time. However, the RFC system has a well proven history of updates by revision and superseding documents when changes are required - is RFC1855 superseded? -- Peter Bell (Note Spamtrap - To reply, replace 'invalid' with 'bellfamily') |
Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
In message <b99k515ukgupl0c4ultbplql9jfva8f6v9@4ax.com>
Andy Turner <andyt@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: > On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 18:38:08 +0100, Peter Bell <peter@invalid.org.uk> > wrote: > > >In message <de9i51tcb1qq82psktn4j5ebpta7658j5p@4ax.com> > > Andy Turner <andyt@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 14:40:13 +0200, Arne <user@domain.invalid> wrote: > >> >Little guideness (also in my sig): > >> >http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post > >> > >> These are only someone's opinions put down in HTML. Bear this in mind. > > > >Really? Is that why it quotes guidelines from Microsoft and from > >RFC1855? > > (a) What jursdiction do Microsoft have here? None. No, I quite agree. I was replying to your assertion that the guidelines given on the web page were one person's opinions. I clearly proved that this is untrue! > (b) IIRC RFC1855 makes a pasing reference to posting styles and merely > makes a little suggestion rather than try and enforce any rules. > (c) And of course RFC1855 was written decades ago and merely > represents the opinions of those around at the time. However, the RFC system has a well proven history of updates by revision and superseding documents when changes are required - is RFC1855 superseded? -- Peter Bell (Note Spamtrap - To reply, replace 'invalid' with 'bellfamily') |
Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
Peter Bell wrote: > However, the RFC system has a well proven history of updates by revision > and superseding documents when changes are required - is RFC1855 > superseded? > Has it been recently reviewed. Like on many roadways, if everybody is speeding, and there was not some engineering study reviewing the speed limit, the posted speed limit becomes unenforcable. Current trends, set standards. |
Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
Peter Bell wrote: > However, the RFC system has a well proven history of updates by revision > and superseding documents when changes are required - is RFC1855 > superseded? > Has it been recently reviewed. Like on many roadways, if everybody is speeding, and there was not some engineering study reviewing the speed limit, the posted speed limit becomes unenforcable. Current trends, set standards. |
Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
Peter Bell wrote: > However, the RFC system has a well proven history of updates by revision > and superseding documents when changes are required - is RFC1855 > superseded? > Has it been recently reviewed. Like on many roadways, if everybody is speeding, and there was not some engineering study reviewing the speed limit, the posted speed limit becomes unenforcable. Current trends, set standards. |
Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
I note you used the word "often". Well you're honest.
For the record, I'm sorry I brought it up. Reference below. Peace. gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote: > Jules wrote: > >>You're not married are you? > > > Sadly, we proper-posters are often happily married, with children. > Women seem curiously drawn to a man with etiquette. Makes the "bad > boy" thing tough to carry off, and thus ruins one's prospects for > playing the field for decades or causes one to live a lonely, boring > life defending poor behavior in usenet. > > Get a life, Jules. > > E.P. > |
Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
I note you used the word "often". Well you're honest.
For the record, I'm sorry I brought it up. Reference below. Peace. gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote: > Jules wrote: > >>You're not married are you? > > > Sadly, we proper-posters are often happily married, with children. > Women seem curiously drawn to a man with etiquette. Makes the "bad > boy" thing tough to carry off, and thus ruins one's prospects for > playing the field for decades or causes one to live a lonely, boring > life defending poor behavior in usenet. > > Get a life, Jules. > > E.P. > |
Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
I note you used the word "often". Well you're honest.
For the record, I'm sorry I brought it up. Reference below. Peace. gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote: > Jules wrote: > >>You're not married are you? > > > Sadly, we proper-posters are often happily married, with children. > Women seem curiously drawn to a man with etiquette. Makes the "bad > boy" thing tough to carry off, and thus ruins one's prospects for > playing the field for decades or causes one to live a lonely, boring > life defending poor behavior in usenet. > > Get a life, Jules. > > E.P. > |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:23 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands