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superseded?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.
>