Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
Once upon a time *Andy Turner* wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:52:35 +0200, Arne <user@domain.invalid> wrote: > >>Once upon a time *Andy Turner* wrote: >> >>> On 10 Apr 2005 10:31:25 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>>>Riding a motorbike (the mere act of riding) has never been considered >>>>rude behavior. >>> >>> *Exactly*. We all accept other people's choices WRT cars and bikes >>> even if it's not the choice we would make. Now then, why can't you >>> accept other people's choices elsewhere? >>> >> >>If you prefer to ride a bike or even walk does'nt disturb me, as long >>as you keep your self walking on the side walk or bike on the right >>side of the road (especially if me meet eatch other). >> >>But I would not accept if you lived next door to me and choose to have >>great partys every night, with loud music and drunk yelling guests. > > You make the same mistake as "E.P.", in that your analogy doesn't > apply because there isn't a group out there that welcome and actually > prefer people to be having loud parties with drunk yelling guests next > door. So what you mean, is that if some of your other neighbours should not mind your loud parties with drunk yelling guests (maybe even be one), that would be ok to have the partys even if all others would mind. Just because not everybody oppose to it and maybe even like it? >>So accepting other peoples choices when it not disturb others is no >>problem. The problem comes when they try to turn everything upside down! > > Top posters don't turn everything upside down, they simply quote for > reference and quote using a stack style. > > >>If you like to do a test, start a thread with somebody who >>bottom post every other time when you top post between, without >>cutting anything. Make 10 posts eatch and look at how stupid it looks, >>with all your posts at the first half of the last post. > > I'm sure it'll look bizarre - but whose fault would it be? What you're > effectively saying is that one should follow the posting trend set by > the first respondent. Would you do that if the first respondent > top-posted? > You should do as the custom is on the group you are posting on, bottom post where it's ask for and top post in groups where that's the custom to do so. You seam to do so for at least the thread you post in, like in this. So what's the problem to do it every time? I don't think you mind bottom posting, you just want to argue and you reach that by objecting to anything that can cause an argue. I'm off now. Bye! :) -- /Arne Top posters will be ignored. Quote the part you are replying to, no more and no less! And don't quote signatures, thank you. |
Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
Once upon a time *Andy Turner* wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:52:35 +0200, Arne <user@domain.invalid> wrote: > >>Once upon a time *Andy Turner* wrote: >> >>> On 10 Apr 2005 10:31:25 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>>>Riding a motorbike (the mere act of riding) has never been considered >>>>rude behavior. >>> >>> *Exactly*. We all accept other people's choices WRT cars and bikes >>> even if it's not the choice we would make. Now then, why can't you >>> accept other people's choices elsewhere? >>> >> >>If you prefer to ride a bike or even walk does'nt disturb me, as long >>as you keep your self walking on the side walk or bike on the right >>side of the road (especially if me meet eatch other). >> >>But I would not accept if you lived next door to me and choose to have >>great partys every night, with loud music and drunk yelling guests. > > You make the same mistake as "E.P.", in that your analogy doesn't > apply because there isn't a group out there that welcome and actually > prefer people to be having loud parties with drunk yelling guests next > door. So what you mean, is that if some of your other neighbours should not mind your loud parties with drunk yelling guests (maybe even be one), that would be ok to have the partys even if all others would mind. Just because not everybody oppose to it and maybe even like it? >>So accepting other peoples choices when it not disturb others is no >>problem. The problem comes when they try to turn everything upside down! > > Top posters don't turn everything upside down, they simply quote for > reference and quote using a stack style. > > >>If you like to do a test, start a thread with somebody who >>bottom post every other time when you top post between, without >>cutting anything. Make 10 posts eatch and look at how stupid it looks, >>with all your posts at the first half of the last post. > > I'm sure it'll look bizarre - but whose fault would it be? What you're > effectively saying is that one should follow the posting trend set by > the first respondent. Would you do that if the first respondent > top-posted? > You should do as the custom is on the group you are posting on, bottom post where it's ask for and top post in groups where that's the custom to do so. You seam to do so for at least the thread you post in, like in this. So what's the problem to do it every time? I don't think you mind bottom posting, you just want to argue and you reach that by objecting to anything that can cause an argue. I'm off now. Bye! :) -- /Arne Top posters will be ignored. Quote the part you are replying to, no more and no less! And don't quote signatures, thank you. |
Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
Once upon a time *Andy Turner* wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:52:35 +0200, Arne <user@domain.invalid> wrote: > >>Once upon a time *Andy Turner* wrote: >> >>> On 10 Apr 2005 10:31:25 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>>>Riding a motorbike (the mere act of riding) has never been considered >>>>rude behavior. >>> >>> *Exactly*. We all accept other people's choices WRT cars and bikes >>> even if it's not the choice we would make. Now then, why can't you >>> accept other people's choices elsewhere? >>> >> >>If you prefer to ride a bike or even walk does'nt disturb me, as long >>as you keep your self walking on the side walk or bike on the right >>side of the road (especially if me meet eatch other). >> >>But I would not accept if you lived next door to me and choose to have >>great partys every night, with loud music and drunk yelling guests. > > You make the same mistake as "E.P.", in that your analogy doesn't > apply because there isn't a group out there that welcome and actually > prefer people to be having loud parties with drunk yelling guests next > door. So what you mean, is that if some of your other neighbours should not mind your loud parties with drunk yelling guests (maybe even be one), that would be ok to have the partys even if all others would mind. Just because not everybody oppose to it and maybe even like it? >>So accepting other peoples choices when it not disturb others is no >>problem. The problem comes when they try to turn everything upside down! > > Top posters don't turn everything upside down, they simply quote for > reference and quote using a stack style. > > >>If you like to do a test, start a thread with somebody who >>bottom post every other time when you top post between, without >>cutting anything. Make 10 posts eatch and look at how stupid it looks, >>with all your posts at the first half of the last post. > > I'm sure it'll look bizarre - but whose fault would it be? What you're > effectively saying is that one should follow the posting trend set by > the first respondent. Would you do that if the first respondent > top-posted? > You should do as the custom is on the group you are posting on, bottom post where it's ask for and top post in groups where that's the custom to do so. You seam to do so for at least the thread you post in, like in this. So what's the problem to do it every time? I don't think you mind bottom posting, you just want to argue and you reach that by objecting to anything that can cause an argue. I'm off now. Bye! :) -- /Arne Top posters will be ignored. Quote the part you are replying to, no more and no less! And don't quote signatures, thank you. |
Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:52:48 +0200, Arne <user@domain.invalid> wrote:
>Once upon a time *Andy Turner* wrote: > >> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:52:35 +0200, Arne <user@domain.invalid> wrote: >> >>>Once upon a time *Andy Turner* wrote: >>> >>>> On 10 Apr 2005 10:31:25 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>Riding a motorbike (the mere act of riding) has never been considered >>>>>rude behavior. >>>> >>>> *Exactly*. We all accept other people's choices WRT cars and bikes >>>> even if it's not the choice we would make. Now then, why can't you >>>> accept other people's choices elsewhere? >>>> >>> >>>If you prefer to ride a bike or even walk does'nt disturb me, as long >>>as you keep your self walking on the side walk or bike on the right >>>side of the road (especially if me meet eatch other). >>> >>>But I would not accept if you lived next door to me and choose to have >>>great partys every night, with loud music and drunk yelling guests. >> >> You make the same mistake as "E.P.", in that your analogy doesn't >> apply because there isn't a group out there that welcome and actually >> prefer people to be having loud parties with drunk yelling guests next >> door. > >So what you mean, is that if some of your other neighbours should not > mind your loud parties with drunk yelling guests (maybe even be one), Not "not mind", but actually *prefer* that there be a loud party going on next door with drunken guests, than there not be - at any given point. Now then, do you know of large groups of people like that? This is why the analogy fails. You simply have to find something which large groups of people *prefer*, but which you find objectionable. And whenever you do that, you're going to hit the same brick wall - that just because *you* don't like it, doesn't make their preference or choice wrong and you have no right to try and insist that they adopt your choice instead. Of course, like I said to our friend, one has to wonder why in order to make your point, you resort to analogies that distort the situation. If your complaint were so valid, then it would be valid by talking about top-posting, not having to talk about drunken parties. >that would be ok to have the partys even if all others would mind. >Just because not everybody oppose to it and maybe even like it? Nope, because top-posters prefer top-posting *all of the time*. So the comparative group you are looking for are those that prefer there to be a loud party on next door than there not be, at any given time. >>>If you like to do a test, start a thread with somebody who >>>bottom post every other time when you top post between, without >>>cutting anything. Make 10 posts eatch and look at how stupid it looks, >>>with all your posts at the first half of the last post. >> >> I'm sure it'll look bizarre - but whose fault would it be? What you're >> effectively saying is that one should follow the posting trend set by >> the first respondent. Would you do that if the first respondent >> top-posted? >> > >You should do as the custom is on the group you are posting on, bottom >post where it's ask for and top post in groups where that's the custom >to do so. Ah, you seem to have avoided the question. Here it is again: Would you continue to top-post in a top-posted thread to avoid the confusion that your above text shows that you appreciate would occur if you were to not top-post? And to answer what you *did* write, would you top-post in a group that is primarily top-posted? IME in the commercial workplace, multi-party email threads are almost always top posted, where the newest respondent puts their reply at the top of the stack. I trust you would follow suit there then? > You seam to do so for at least the thread you post in, like > in this. So what's the problem to do it every time? I *do* do it every time since that is my preferred style. However, I appreciate that other people have different experiences and will choose different styles. It'd be ludicrous for me to think that everyone will make the same choices as me and I wouldn't expect them to, nor try and insist that they do. >I don't think you mind bottom posting *Of course* I don't mind bottom posting, I don't mind interleaved posting and I don't mind top posting. I mean, come on, they're only style preferences after all... It ain't rocket science! > you just want to argue and you > reach that by objecting to anything that can cause an argue. Sorry, but no. I didn't even start this, the top post whining started this. I just figured I'd point out the rank hypocrisy, selfishness and blinkered outlook that top-post whiners generally have. Oh and incidentally, look at how interleaved posting in this thread has left the attributions at the top of this post in a complete mess. It says "On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:52:48 +0200, Arne wrote", and yet what you *actually* wrote on that day doesn't appear until *30* lines lower down (perhaps off the screen for some people), after various things that I said, that you said previously, and that "E.P." wrote also. Top-posting eliminates this problem. andyt |
Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:52:48 +0200, Arne <user@domain.invalid> wrote:
>Once upon a time *Andy Turner* wrote: > >> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:52:35 +0200, Arne <user@domain.invalid> wrote: >> >>>Once upon a time *Andy Turner* wrote: >>> >>>> On 10 Apr 2005 10:31:25 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>Riding a motorbike (the mere act of riding) has never been considered >>>>>rude behavior. >>>> >>>> *Exactly*. We all accept other people's choices WRT cars and bikes >>>> even if it's not the choice we would make. Now then, why can't you >>>> accept other people's choices elsewhere? >>>> >>> >>>If you prefer to ride a bike or even walk does'nt disturb me, as long >>>as you keep your self walking on the side walk or bike on the right >>>side of the road (especially if me meet eatch other). >>> >>>But I would not accept if you lived next door to me and choose to have >>>great partys every night, with loud music and drunk yelling guests. >> >> You make the same mistake as "E.P.", in that your analogy doesn't >> apply because there isn't a group out there that welcome and actually >> prefer people to be having loud parties with drunk yelling guests next >> door. > >So what you mean, is that if some of your other neighbours should not > mind your loud parties with drunk yelling guests (maybe even be one), Not "not mind", but actually *prefer* that there be a loud party going on next door with drunken guests, than there not be - at any given point. Now then, do you know of large groups of people like that? This is why the analogy fails. You simply have to find something which large groups of people *prefer*, but which you find objectionable. And whenever you do that, you're going to hit the same brick wall - that just because *you* don't like it, doesn't make their preference or choice wrong and you have no right to try and insist that they adopt your choice instead. Of course, like I said to our friend, one has to wonder why in order to make your point, you resort to analogies that distort the situation. If your complaint were so valid, then it would be valid by talking about top-posting, not having to talk about drunken parties. >that would be ok to have the partys even if all others would mind. >Just because not everybody oppose to it and maybe even like it? Nope, because top-posters prefer top-posting *all of the time*. So the comparative group you are looking for are those that prefer there to be a loud party on next door than there not be, at any given time. >>>If you like to do a test, start a thread with somebody who >>>bottom post every other time when you top post between, without >>>cutting anything. Make 10 posts eatch and look at how stupid it looks, >>>with all your posts at the first half of the last post. >> >> I'm sure it'll look bizarre - but whose fault would it be? What you're >> effectively saying is that one should follow the posting trend set by >> the first respondent. Would you do that if the first respondent >> top-posted? >> > >You should do as the custom is on the group you are posting on, bottom >post where it's ask for and top post in groups where that's the custom >to do so. Ah, you seem to have avoided the question. Here it is again: Would you continue to top-post in a top-posted thread to avoid the confusion that your above text shows that you appreciate would occur if you were to not top-post? And to answer what you *did* write, would you top-post in a group that is primarily top-posted? IME in the commercial workplace, multi-party email threads are almost always top posted, where the newest respondent puts their reply at the top of the stack. I trust you would follow suit there then? > You seam to do so for at least the thread you post in, like > in this. So what's the problem to do it every time? I *do* do it every time since that is my preferred style. However, I appreciate that other people have different experiences and will choose different styles. It'd be ludicrous for me to think that everyone will make the same choices as me and I wouldn't expect them to, nor try and insist that they do. >I don't think you mind bottom posting *Of course* I don't mind bottom posting, I don't mind interleaved posting and I don't mind top posting. I mean, come on, they're only style preferences after all... It ain't rocket science! > you just want to argue and you > reach that by objecting to anything that can cause an argue. Sorry, but no. I didn't even start this, the top post whining started this. I just figured I'd point out the rank hypocrisy, selfishness and blinkered outlook that top-post whiners generally have. Oh and incidentally, look at how interleaved posting in this thread has left the attributions at the top of this post in a complete mess. It says "On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:52:48 +0200, Arne wrote", and yet what you *actually* wrote on that day doesn't appear until *30* lines lower down (perhaps off the screen for some people), after various things that I said, that you said previously, and that "E.P." wrote also. Top-posting eliminates this problem. andyt |
Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:52:48 +0200, Arne <user@domain.invalid> wrote:
>Once upon a time *Andy Turner* wrote: > >> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:52:35 +0200, Arne <user@domain.invalid> wrote: >> >>>Once upon a time *Andy Turner* wrote: >>> >>>> On 10 Apr 2005 10:31:25 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>Riding a motorbike (the mere act of riding) has never been considered >>>>>rude behavior. >>>> >>>> *Exactly*. We all accept other people's choices WRT cars and bikes >>>> even if it's not the choice we would make. Now then, why can't you >>>> accept other people's choices elsewhere? >>>> >>> >>>If you prefer to ride a bike or even walk does'nt disturb me, as long >>>as you keep your self walking on the side walk or bike on the right >>>side of the road (especially if me meet eatch other). >>> >>>But I would not accept if you lived next door to me and choose to have >>>great partys every night, with loud music and drunk yelling guests. >> >> You make the same mistake as "E.P.", in that your analogy doesn't >> apply because there isn't a group out there that welcome and actually >> prefer people to be having loud parties with drunk yelling guests next >> door. > >So what you mean, is that if some of your other neighbours should not > mind your loud parties with drunk yelling guests (maybe even be one), Not "not mind", but actually *prefer* that there be a loud party going on next door with drunken guests, than there not be - at any given point. Now then, do you know of large groups of people like that? This is why the analogy fails. You simply have to find something which large groups of people *prefer*, but which you find objectionable. And whenever you do that, you're going to hit the same brick wall - that just because *you* don't like it, doesn't make their preference or choice wrong and you have no right to try and insist that they adopt your choice instead. Of course, like I said to our friend, one has to wonder why in order to make your point, you resort to analogies that distort the situation. If your complaint were so valid, then it would be valid by talking about top-posting, not having to talk about drunken parties. >that would be ok to have the partys even if all others would mind. >Just because not everybody oppose to it and maybe even like it? Nope, because top-posters prefer top-posting *all of the time*. So the comparative group you are looking for are those that prefer there to be a loud party on next door than there not be, at any given time. >>>If you like to do a test, start a thread with somebody who >>>bottom post every other time when you top post between, without >>>cutting anything. Make 10 posts eatch and look at how stupid it looks, >>>with all your posts at the first half of the last post. >> >> I'm sure it'll look bizarre - but whose fault would it be? What you're >> effectively saying is that one should follow the posting trend set by >> the first respondent. Would you do that if the first respondent >> top-posted? >> > >You should do as the custom is on the group you are posting on, bottom >post where it's ask for and top post in groups where that's the custom >to do so. Ah, you seem to have avoided the question. Here it is again: Would you continue to top-post in a top-posted thread to avoid the confusion that your above text shows that you appreciate would occur if you were to not top-post? And to answer what you *did* write, would you top-post in a group that is primarily top-posted? IME in the commercial workplace, multi-party email threads are almost always top posted, where the newest respondent puts their reply at the top of the stack. I trust you would follow suit there then? > You seam to do so for at least the thread you post in, like > in this. So what's the problem to do it every time? I *do* do it every time since that is my preferred style. However, I appreciate that other people have different experiences and will choose different styles. It'd be ludicrous for me to think that everyone will make the same choices as me and I wouldn't expect them to, nor try and insist that they do. >I don't think you mind bottom posting *Of course* I don't mind bottom posting, I don't mind interleaved posting and I don't mind top posting. I mean, come on, they're only style preferences after all... It ain't rocket science! > you just want to argue and you > reach that by objecting to anything that can cause an argue. Sorry, but no. I didn't even start this, the top post whining started this. I just figured I'd point out the rank hypocrisy, selfishness and blinkered outlook that top-post whiners generally have. Oh and incidentally, look at how interleaved posting in this thread has left the attributions at the top of this post in a complete mess. It says "On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:52:48 +0200, Arne wrote", and yet what you *actually* wrote on that day doesn't appear until *30* lines lower down (perhaps off the screen for some people), after various things that I said, that you said previously, and that "E.P." wrote also. Top-posting eliminates this problem. andyt |
Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
Well, Andy, since you can't stop humping every post I make in a.a.a
(except one, if I see correctly), let's just end this here. I suspect you either need to get the last word in, or you're taking a piss. If the former, you'll be jubilant. If the latter, saddened that I'm taking your fun away. So, let's just start with where you're mistaken, and move on from there: 1.) You mischaracterized my first post regarding top-posting as a whine. It was a response to a top-poster who was complaining about the quality of another's posting habits. We won't call your characterization a lie, we'll call it "fanciful." 2.) You have mischaracterized my opposition to top-posting as "wanting to stamp [it] out." Only a total idiot would think that any person can stamp out anything in usenet. It's more likely to stamp out a forest fire. I can do no more to halt top-posting than you can to halt spam. 3.) You claim (without even the slightest evidence) that top-posting is "welcome and preferred" by a great many people. I would say the same proportion of folks "welcome and prefer" beastiality for fun and profit. I suspect that the vast majority of top-posters do it because they are ignorant, lazy or selfish. They don't know it's poor netiquette, they do know, but don't care to change where their cursor is, or they know, but do it on purpose for whatever reason. Further, I suspect the first group to be far and away the largest of the three. I discount the last group as being like the group of folks who feel having a cell conversation during a film is OK. As far as being welcomed? I think it's merely tolerated. Mostly, I tolerate it too. Except when top-posters start making critiques of posting style. I don't see much welcoming. "Hey, thanks for top-posting!" You never read that anywhere. 4.) You claim against available evidence that posting style is merely personal preference. The RFC posting guidelines show this to be untrue. While not "law", nor enforceable at all, RFC guidelines are about as official as it's going to get. And until they are revised, top-posting will be "quasi-officially" against netiquette. 5.) This argument is weakly bolstered by claiming that the RFC guidelines are "behind the times." This is nothing more than a rhetorical smokescreen which hides circular logic. The reason so many newbies top-post is because crummy software sent along with the vast majority of PCs isn't RFC-compliant. Even Google's "reply" link defaults to top-posting. I have it on good authority that this will change in the first non-beta release. In any case, this doen't imply that somehow the netiquette has been altered. Just because a bunch of people unwittingly do a rude thing doesn't imply that that thing is not rude anymore. In any case, the "times have changed" argument is more assertion without proof. When the RFC is changesd, then this will be a meaningful argument. 6.) As long as top-posting turns natural reading (top-to-bottom, chronological order) on it's head, it will always be resisted. Now, having said all that, let's just get to your problems with logic, shall we? 1.) Comparison by analogy was good enough for Socrates, so it's good enough for me. It's a fine red herring, however. BTW, "analogy" <> "the very same thing". Look it up in a dictionary, if necessary. 2.) You make some distinction about rude behavior as needing a third party to welcome it. Well, one would imagine that there is more than one all-caps, HTML, binaries-in-text-only, -spammer, etc in existence. There's your third party - all the others who think that it's just fine to plop down in a theater seat and make running commentary to their next-seat neighbor. Etc, etc, etc. 3.) Shifting from the individual to the global and back again to try and score rhetorical points is dishonest. If you want to have a meanigful discussion (it seems that with you, this is a doubtful proposition,) you may want to try and use real logic, instead of attempting to obfuscate. 4.) Quotes in stack order is fine for folks who do RPN or other such archaic computing tasks. But people don't read like that. People read top-to-bottom. In every society with written language. Even footnotes are presented in semi-interspersed format. Stack style is not natural to the vast, overwhelming majority of readers of the English language. 5.) The ad hominem style ("can't handle top-posting", "learn some new tricks.") or other such logical fallacies aren't persuasive. If you cannot address the issue, attacking *me* doesn't make your point more clear, or your logic more air-tight. Strawman arguments are strawman arguments whether or not they're phrased as a question. If you can't use logic to make your case, then it really wasn't that strong to begin with. 6.) Finally (hey - stop that cheering), if it were only *my* preference, or only *my* wish, then I sure as hell would not try and jam my minority views down anyone's throat. Unlike the majority of top-posting defenders, who moan and whine because they are not being treated fairly. And they share that attribute with about 100% of immature folks whose errant ways are pointed out. They pout about the unfairness of it all. I hope that provides ample grist for your response mill - I don't plan on responding to any more of your posts. Have fun with your response to this post - I am pointedly not going to read it. HAND, E.P. |
Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
Well, Andy, since you can't stop humping every post I make in a.a.a
(except one, if I see correctly), let's just end this here. I suspect you either need to get the last word in, or you're taking a piss. If the former, you'll be jubilant. If the latter, saddened that I'm taking your fun away. So, let's just start with where you're mistaken, and move on from there: 1.) You mischaracterized my first post regarding top-posting as a whine. It was a response to a top-poster who was complaining about the quality of another's posting habits. We won't call your characterization a lie, we'll call it "fanciful." 2.) You have mischaracterized my opposition to top-posting as "wanting to stamp [it] out." Only a total idiot would think that any person can stamp out anything in usenet. It's more likely to stamp out a forest fire. I can do no more to halt top-posting than you can to halt spam. 3.) You claim (without even the slightest evidence) that top-posting is "welcome and preferred" by a great many people. I would say the same proportion of folks "welcome and prefer" beastiality for fun and profit. I suspect that the vast majority of top-posters do it because they are ignorant, lazy or selfish. They don't know it's poor netiquette, they do know, but don't care to change where their cursor is, or they know, but do it on purpose for whatever reason. Further, I suspect the first group to be far and away the largest of the three. I discount the last group as being like the group of folks who feel having a cell conversation during a film is OK. As far as being welcomed? I think it's merely tolerated. Mostly, I tolerate it too. Except when top-posters start making critiques of posting style. I don't see much welcoming. "Hey, thanks for top-posting!" You never read that anywhere. 4.) You claim against available evidence that posting style is merely personal preference. The RFC posting guidelines show this to be untrue. While not "law", nor enforceable at all, RFC guidelines are about as official as it's going to get. And until they are revised, top-posting will be "quasi-officially" against netiquette. 5.) This argument is weakly bolstered by claiming that the RFC guidelines are "behind the times." This is nothing more than a rhetorical smokescreen which hides circular logic. The reason so many newbies top-post is because crummy software sent along with the vast majority of PCs isn't RFC-compliant. Even Google's "reply" link defaults to top-posting. I have it on good authority that this will change in the first non-beta release. In any case, this doen't imply that somehow the netiquette has been altered. Just because a bunch of people unwittingly do a rude thing doesn't imply that that thing is not rude anymore. In any case, the "times have changed" argument is more assertion without proof. When the RFC is changesd, then this will be a meaningful argument. 6.) As long as top-posting turns natural reading (top-to-bottom, chronological order) on it's head, it will always be resisted. Now, having said all that, let's just get to your problems with logic, shall we? 1.) Comparison by analogy was good enough for Socrates, so it's good enough for me. It's a fine red herring, however. BTW, "analogy" <> "the very same thing". Look it up in a dictionary, if necessary. 2.) You make some distinction about rude behavior as needing a third party to welcome it. Well, one would imagine that there is more than one all-caps, HTML, binaries-in-text-only, -spammer, etc in existence. There's your third party - all the others who think that it's just fine to plop down in a theater seat and make running commentary to their next-seat neighbor. Etc, etc, etc. 3.) Shifting from the individual to the global and back again to try and score rhetorical points is dishonest. If you want to have a meanigful discussion (it seems that with you, this is a doubtful proposition,) you may want to try and use real logic, instead of attempting to obfuscate. 4.) Quotes in stack order is fine for folks who do RPN or other such archaic computing tasks. But people don't read like that. People read top-to-bottom. In every society with written language. Even footnotes are presented in semi-interspersed format. Stack style is not natural to the vast, overwhelming majority of readers of the English language. 5.) The ad hominem style ("can't handle top-posting", "learn some new tricks.") or other such logical fallacies aren't persuasive. If you cannot address the issue, attacking *me* doesn't make your point more clear, or your logic more air-tight. Strawman arguments are strawman arguments whether or not they're phrased as a question. If you can't use logic to make your case, then it really wasn't that strong to begin with. 6.) Finally (hey - stop that cheering), if it were only *my* preference, or only *my* wish, then I sure as hell would not try and jam my minority views down anyone's throat. Unlike the majority of top-posting defenders, who moan and whine because they are not being treated fairly. And they share that attribute with about 100% of immature folks whose errant ways are pointed out. They pout about the unfairness of it all. I hope that provides ample grist for your response mill - I don't plan on responding to any more of your posts. Have fun with your response to this post - I am pointedly not going to read it. HAND, E.P. |
Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
Well, Andy, since you can't stop humping every post I make in a.a.a
(except one, if I see correctly), let's just end this here. I suspect you either need to get the last word in, or you're taking a piss. If the former, you'll be jubilant. If the latter, saddened that I'm taking your fun away. So, let's just start with where you're mistaken, and move on from there: 1.) You mischaracterized my first post regarding top-posting as a whine. It was a response to a top-poster who was complaining about the quality of another's posting habits. We won't call your characterization a lie, we'll call it "fanciful." 2.) You have mischaracterized my opposition to top-posting as "wanting to stamp [it] out." Only a total idiot would think that any person can stamp out anything in usenet. It's more likely to stamp out a forest fire. I can do no more to halt top-posting than you can to halt spam. 3.) You claim (without even the slightest evidence) that top-posting is "welcome and preferred" by a great many people. I would say the same proportion of folks "welcome and prefer" beastiality for fun and profit. I suspect that the vast majority of top-posters do it because they are ignorant, lazy or selfish. They don't know it's poor netiquette, they do know, but don't care to change where their cursor is, or they know, but do it on purpose for whatever reason. Further, I suspect the first group to be far and away the largest of the three. I discount the last group as being like the group of folks who feel having a cell conversation during a film is OK. As far as being welcomed? I think it's merely tolerated. Mostly, I tolerate it too. Except when top-posters start making critiques of posting style. I don't see much welcoming. "Hey, thanks for top-posting!" You never read that anywhere. 4.) You claim against available evidence that posting style is merely personal preference. The RFC posting guidelines show this to be untrue. While not "law", nor enforceable at all, RFC guidelines are about as official as it's going to get. And until they are revised, top-posting will be "quasi-officially" against netiquette. 5.) This argument is weakly bolstered by claiming that the RFC guidelines are "behind the times." This is nothing more than a rhetorical smokescreen which hides circular logic. The reason so many newbies top-post is because crummy software sent along with the vast majority of PCs isn't RFC-compliant. Even Google's "reply" link defaults to top-posting. I have it on good authority that this will change in the first non-beta release. In any case, this doen't imply that somehow the netiquette has been altered. Just because a bunch of people unwittingly do a rude thing doesn't imply that that thing is not rude anymore. In any case, the "times have changed" argument is more assertion without proof. When the RFC is changesd, then this will be a meaningful argument. 6.) As long as top-posting turns natural reading (top-to-bottom, chronological order) on it's head, it will always be resisted. Now, having said all that, let's just get to your problems with logic, shall we? 1.) Comparison by analogy was good enough for Socrates, so it's good enough for me. It's a fine red herring, however. BTW, "analogy" <> "the very same thing". Look it up in a dictionary, if necessary. 2.) You make some distinction about rude behavior as needing a third party to welcome it. Well, one would imagine that there is more than one all-caps, HTML, binaries-in-text-only, -spammer, etc in existence. There's your third party - all the others who think that it's just fine to plop down in a theater seat and make running commentary to their next-seat neighbor. Etc, etc, etc. 3.) Shifting from the individual to the global and back again to try and score rhetorical points is dishonest. If you want to have a meanigful discussion (it seems that with you, this is a doubtful proposition,) you may want to try and use real logic, instead of attempting to obfuscate. 4.) Quotes in stack order is fine for folks who do RPN or other such archaic computing tasks. But people don't read like that. People read top-to-bottom. In every society with written language. Even footnotes are presented in semi-interspersed format. Stack style is not natural to the vast, overwhelming majority of readers of the English language. 5.) The ad hominem style ("can't handle top-posting", "learn some new tricks.") or other such logical fallacies aren't persuasive. If you cannot address the issue, attacking *me* doesn't make your point more clear, or your logic more air-tight. Strawman arguments are strawman arguments whether or not they're phrased as a question. If you can't use logic to make your case, then it really wasn't that strong to begin with. 6.) Finally (hey - stop that cheering), if it were only *my* preference, or only *my* wish, then I sure as hell would not try and jam my minority views down anyone's throat. Unlike the majority of top-posting defenders, who moan and whine because they are not being treated fairly. And they share that attribute with about 100% of immature folks whose errant ways are pointed out. They pout about the unfairness of it all. I hope that provides ample grist for your response mill - I don't plan on responding to any more of your posts. Have fun with your response to this post - I am pointedly not going to read it. HAND, E.P. |
Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
On 12 Apr 2005 18:05:57 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>Well, Andy, since you can't stop humping every post I make in a.a.a Not intentionally every post, just those where you spout selfish and blinkered views on top-posting and bizarre analogies that attempt to justify your views by distorting the situation. Now then, if that turns out to be all that you post in a.a.a, then I guess it might seem like I'm replying to each post you make.... >(except one, if I see correctly), let's just end this here. I suspect >you either need to get the last word in, or you're taking a piss. Taking a piss?! > If the former, you'll be jubilant. If the latter, saddened that I'm >taking your fun away. I'd just be happy that you stop top-post whining and learn to accept another style. Believe me, it'll make you a much happier person. I'm doing you a favour here! >So, let's just start with where you're mistaken, and move on from >there: > >1.) You mischaracterized my first post regarding top-posting as a >whine. OK, so it was your *second* post to the thread that whined about top-posting, not your first... Jeeez... > It was a response to a top-poster who was complaining about the > quality of another's posting habits. At least he was complaining about the *content* of what someone said, rather than how they chose to lay it out! > We won't call your characterization a lie, we'll call it "fanciful." Your second post to the thread whined about top-posting. This is not a lie, this is not fanciful, it's a nailed on honest fact. >2.) You have mischaracterized my opposition to top-posting as "wanting >to stamp [it] out." Only a total idiot would think that any person can >stamp out anything in usenet. <bites tongue> > It's more likely to stamp out a forest fire. I can do no more to > halt top-posting than you can to halt spam. I'm glad you realise this. >3.) You claim (without even the slightest evidence) that top-posting >is "welcome and preferred" by a great many people. Here's an example: try microsoft.public.vc.atl. Bottom or interleaved posting is still the majority, but top-posting is extremely prevalent (perhaps 25% of posts), and no-one bats an eyelid, gets confused or complains. There are some *very* smart people in there talking about some extremely complicated constructs and concepts. When explaining things of such magnitude, to complain about how it's laid out seems just *so* pathetic and irrelevant. > I would say the same proportion of folks "welcome and prefer" > beastiality for fun and profit. Again, your analogy (yet another analogy), does not apply. I tire of explaining why, but it's the usual problem. > I suspect that the vast majority of top-posters do it because > they are ignorant, lazy or selfish. Then it is your suspicion that is ignorant. Why don't you *ask* some top-posters why they do it? What do you expect they might reply? One of your above suggestions, or perhaps merely "because I prefer it". > They don't know it's poor netiquette, they do know, but don't > care to change where their cursor is, > or they know, but do it on purpose for whatever reason. And by saying "whatever reason", you're admitting that you don't actually know. Think about this. Could it just be that "whatever reason", is simply that they prefer it and many of the people they talk to prefer it also? Is that possibility *really* so hard to believe? > Further, I suspect the first group to be far and away the largest of > the three. I discount the last group as being like the group of folks > who feel having a cell conversation during a film is OK. More bad analogy.... > As far as being welcomed? I think it's merely tolerated. Loads of people use it. Do you think they are "merely tolerating", its use by others? Really? > Mostly, I tolerate it too. That's good. Learn to embrace it and you'll be much less uptight. It's really not something to be concerned or upset about. > Except when top-posters start making critiques of posting style. The post to which you initially responded was IMO actually critiquing the content, not the layout. Remember that he went on to say "It's the contents that matter to me, my friend. Layouts are for marketeers". I think you may have called that one wrong. > I don't see much welcoming. "Hey, thanks for > top-posting!" You never read that anywhere. You know why? It's because top-posters aren't so about posting styles - they don't whine, they don't write FAQs, they just get on with posting and having conversations. That *is* what we're here for isn't it? >4.) You claim against available evidence that posting style is merely >personal preference. The RFC posting guidelines show this to be >untrue. While not "law", nor enforceable at all, RFC guidelines are >about as official as it's going to get. And until they are revised, >top-posting will be "quasi-officially" against netiquette. The appropriate RFC (http://rfc.net/rfc1855.html have you even read it?), gives some weak and vague suggestion as to posting style. It doesn't even allow for an interleaved posting style (as both you and I have been using), since it says we should only leave a quote at the top of the message. Bizarrely it acknowledges failures in proliferation of messages in usenet yet suggests we shouldn't leave a full quote (for reference - despite this being the best way to address that problem). It also makes no mention of quoting for reference and only talks about context quoting - something which top-posting does not require. In the very next section it also implies that one should use a valid email address and include it in your sig in case it gets stripped somewhere along the way (it does not mention obfuscating it). Now then, given address harvesting, hardly anyone includes a valid email address these days. Hence my comments that the RFC does not reflect common sense, popular usage and, being 10 years old, is largely out of date (many RFCs probably suffer from this). Even yourself are 'in breach' of it for reasons outlined above. >5.) This argument is weakly bolstered by claiming that the RFC >guidelines are "behind the times." See above. This is fact. > This is nothing more than a rhetorical smokescreen which hides > circular logic. LOL! Pardon?! Care to explain that! It's a *lovely* soundbite but it means nothing WRT any of my arguments! Oh and, see above, where I explain how it's *actually* a fact. > The reason so many newbies top-post is because crummy software > sent along with the vast majority of PCs isn't RFC-compliant. Why does that affect how they post, and which alternative software does something different to affect the way they post differently? > Even Google's "reply" link defaults to top-posting. By doing what? If I'm interleaving my post, I'd want the cursor at the top to start with. If I'm bottom-posting, I'd still want the cursor at the top so as I can trim. If you place the cursor at the bottom automatically, all that's likely to happen is that bottom-posters will get lazy about trimming (as top-posters often are) since they're not forced to scroll through to find their spot (as top posters are not). > I have it on good authority that this will change in the first non-beta > release. Really? By whom? > Just because a bunch of people unwittingly do a rude thing > doesn't imply that that thing is not rude anymore. There are many customs in different countries which you might find rude, or customs of yours that they might find rude. Do you think their customs are wrong? Or in that instance would you respect their customs? >In any case, the "times have changed" argument is more assertion >without proof. I've provided various examples in my explanation of the RFC above. The RFC itself (http://rfc.net/rfc1855.html) has a date of 1995. That's 10 years ago. Things on the internet have changed *massively* in the last 10 years, including bandwidth and local storage (rendering trimming much less of an issue), and always-on connections (making ad hoc and far more granular conversations much more prevalent). Even the demographics of users has changed massively in that time. All this adds up to different usage patterns which the RFC has failed to reflect. If you're going to claim that there's no proof that "times have changed", then quite frankly I'm going to laugh and laugh and laugh. > When the RFC is changesd, then this will be a > meaningful argument. Why? I'm saying that it's out of date. It doesn't have to be updated in order to prove that it was out of date - you only have to show how it's out of date, as I did above. What curious logic you have! >6.) As long as top-posting turns natural reading (top-to-bottom, >chronological order) on it's head, it will always be resisted. But it doesn't. It's simply presenting reference quotes in stack order. Each person's contribution is obviously presented in the correct order. "Natural reading", is *not* to read a quote of what you've just read in the prior post. You simply read the new material. >Now, having said all that, let's just get to your problems with logic, >shall we? I can hardly wait ;-) >1.) Comparison by analogy was good enough for Socrates, so it's good >enough for me. It's a fine red herring, however. >BTW, "analogy" <> "the very same thing". Of course not, but it *is* supposed to be at least analogous, to make *some* sense at least. Yours haven't been for the reasons I've been outlining. You've simply been thinking of a situation where a behaviour *is* rude and then pretending that's got something in common with top-posting (which it never had) and that it somehow makes top-posting rude too! Like I say, your dependency on so-called analogies to try and make your points sound valid tells its own story. >Look it up in a dictionary, if necessary. Er.. right, thanks. >2.) You make some distinction about rude behavior as needing a third >party to welcome it. Only if you want to compare it to top-posting. Y'see in order for your analogies with top-posting to make sense, the behaviour you compare it with has to be perfectly acceptable - both to and by those who practice it - since top-posters are happy to see other people top-post* * Unless of course, you can find a top-post-whiner who actually top-posts himself.... > Well, one would imagine that there is more than > one all-caps, HTML, binaries-in-text-only, -spammer, etc in > existence. There's your third party - all the others who think that > it's just fine to plop down in a theater seat and make running > commentary to their next-seat neighbor. Etc, etc, etc. <sigh> You're still not getting the third-party aspect are you. Suggesting that there might be multiple people with these behaviours does not suggest that they have a preference for other people to exhibit that behaviour. And you're *still* spouting poor analogies. >3.) Shifting from the individual to the global and back again to try >and score rhetorical points is dishonest. If you want to have a >meanigful discussion (it seems that with you, this is a doubtful >proposition,) you may want to try and use real logic, instead of >attempting to obfuscate. I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to reference here or how it relates to *anything* I have ever said. Perhaps you could start by at least making a quote or a reference alongside your claims? Otherwise, this just sounds like something you've cut and pasted from some other prior argument you've had! Ending the section by claiming I've been "attempting to obfuscate", is just irony itself! >4.) Quotes in stack order is fine for folks who do RPN or other such >archaic computing tasks. But people don't read like that. AFAIAA Usenet or email quoting does not have any precursor in prior communication methods or media. Unless of course you can suggest one? > People read top-to-bottom. In every society with written language. As do people in top-posted threads. The quote is provided for reference. You *do* get the difference between reference and context quoting don't you? > Even footnotes are presented in semi-interspersed format. Footnotes and appendixes are presented after the new text. They tend to be provided for reference y'know. > Stack style is not natural to the vast, overwhelming majority of > readers of the English language. It's a style that has emerged out of necessity on usenet. As I said above, prior to this, people simply didn't make block quotes before replying. It doesn't happen in spoken word, it doesn't happen in books, it doesn't happen in written letters, it simply didn't happen. If you're going to say that, then note that having each line begin with a '>' character *also* isn't "natural to the vast, overwhelming majority of readers of the English language", but you don't seem to be complaining about that. It's just a new thing, borne of the desire to make quotes in usenet or email conversations. >5.) The ad hominem style ("can't handle top-posting", "learn some new >tricks.") or other such logical fallacies aren't persuasive. Do you honestly think you've been persuasive in your style WRT wanting people to bottom post? Really? How about how you've been saying that people are lazy, ignorant or selfish? Is *that* being persuasive? > If you cannot address the issue, attacking *me* doesn't make your > point more clear, or your logic more air-tight. You implied I'd been name-calling. I asked you to quote me doing so. You didn't come back with anything. Why is that? *I* know the answer of course... > Strawman arguments are strawman arguments whether or not > they're phrased as a question. 'fraid not - since I *didn't* give my conclusion based on the answer (since you never gave one), I only asked the question. Where it was leading might have been clear (hence you avoiding answering it), but I didn't suppose your answer and didn't present my conclusion. This was no strawman. Not even a little bit. > If you can't use logic to make your case, then it really wasn't > that strong to begin with. Read that again. Think about how many poor analogies you've attempted to make and then read that again. Listen out for a penny dropping. >6.) Finally (hey - stop that cheering), if it were only *my* >preference, or only *my* wish, then I sure as hell would not try and >jam my minority views down anyone's throat. Does the fact that it's a majority view make that behaviour any more correct? I don't think so... >Unlike the majority of >top-posting defenders, who moan and whine because they are not being >treated fairly. And they share that attribute with about 100% of >immature folks whose errant ways are pointed out. They pout about the >unfairness of it all. And it *is* unfair for you to expect someone else to take on board your preferences. Why the hell should they do that any more than you would take on board theirs? In a system where more than one standard can work side by side, why is there even any need to? >I hope that provides ample grist for your response mill - I don't plan >on responding to any more of your posts. Have fun with your response >to this post - I am pointedly not going to read it. Ah yes, an extremely typical behaviour of someone so markedly blinkered and stubborn in their viewpoint (in fact, you did say a few days ago that you wouldn't change your position no matter what was said). You even go to the lengths of saying that you're not going to read the reply. Kinda like sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la la la", to avoid being told what you don't want to hear. One has to be curious as to why he felt the need to tell me this however, rather than simply not reading it... andyt |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:46 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands