ham sandwich
in [Celiac]
|
From: Grandpa on 28 Aug 2005 22:01 Janice wrote: > First and lastmost. There are ***NO*** Usenet rules. > You make that sound so definite. -- Grandpa Koca - SAHD for 6 - Keeper of the Perpetual Kindergarten What is that dripping from my fingers? Why it looks like time.
From: Don Wiss on 28 Aug 2005 22:35 On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 20:33:41 -0400, Janice <Janice(a)hotmail.ca> wrote: >First and lastmost. There are ***NO*** Usenet rules. Sorry, you are wrong. >There are, however, many rule making wannabees that have strong preferences >and want to see their name in lights on a webpage somewhere. Actually there are newsgroups where the rules were discussed. Then a volunteer took it all and wrote it into a FAQ like document. This was long ago. >Bottom posting made sense before the time of threading browsers. Usenet has always had threading browsers. From day one of Usenet. >Now, why would anybody post their attached reference text or their enclosed >references before their comment? Not many would do this in an actual hard >copy letter or a technical document. Because everybody I know reads from top to bottom. References, a.k.a. footnotes, have nothing to do with here. No one I know uses them in newsgroup posts. >The argument is moot and outdated and most prefer the top posting method >because they have already read the previous posts and don't need to see it >all again (waste of bandwidth and memory). No, most do it because they are lazy, and don't wish to have to deal with the trimming that is required when you bottom post. And leaving all of it below without trimming is the waste of bandwidth, and server storage space. > Most do not want to have to >scroll to the bottom of a post only to scroll back up again to the top of >the new post text either. I don't follow you here. With trimming you aren't scrolling very far. Why would you ever be scrolling up again to the top? >Many prefer the headers with the text they belong to, not scrambled all over >the post in a nested fashion. The worst scrambles I see are the top posters. Since they haven't trimmed anything the level of quoting is so deep you can't read is going on. This is made much worse by the lame Outlook Express that most people use for news reading. It isn't smart enough to not chop up quoted lines. What is really pathetic, is the software has had this bug for at least 10 years, and Microsoft has shown no inclination to fix it. Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).
From: Christopher Jahn on 28 Aug 2005 22:41 PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLL Thank you. ;-) -- }:-) Christopher Jahn {:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html If it jams, force it. If it breaks, it needed replacement anyway.
From: Janice on 28 Aug 2005 22:48 I think he answered honestly and that doesn't make him a troll because he disagress with you or anybody else. Posting this message was more of a troll than the discussion going on. "Christopher Jahn" <xjahn(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Xns96C0E6C9676D8xjahn(a)216.196.97.136... > PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLL > > Thank you. > ;-) > > > > -- > }:-) Christopher Jahn > {:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html > > If it jams, force it. If it breaks, it needed replacement anyway.
From: Janice on 28 Aug 2005 23:00
USENET has no rules and do not post any rules. Yes, groups can post FAQ and make define a charter that defines their preferred style but none of it is enforcable and all one big wish list. Some ISPs will enforce a violated charter of a Newsgroup but that is getting less and less. Show me a Usenet Netiquette cite. Sorry. There are none. Since most of the posters here top post the de facto standard here is top posting. Oh and threading browsers were not around when Usenet started. Some had to download with an FTP technique in the beginning. I would think a a bottom poster you would be very aware of what I meant. If I post a large piece of text and you use your "jump to the bottom" technique then you now have to back scroll to the top of my text to start reading. When you post I am sure you want people to read it and by putting it at the bottom about 50% of the reader will just bypass it because as well as being too lazy to trim they are too lazy to scroll down to your text. I wouldn't have bothered with your text either except for our discussion. Top posting never mixes other headers with text. The header is always right before the posted text and stays there. The combination of techniques does get messy but so does all bottom posting after many nestings. Nesting doesn't happen with top posting. Good luck with your quest. The practice is waning due to logical choices and duplicating real life practices. <find your previous text enclosed below> "Don Wiss" <donwiss(a)no_spam.com> wrote in message news:6np4h1p2eeu95mvtcr4dca70f5ca4einhe(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 20:33:41 -0400, Janice <Janice(a)hotmail.ca> wrote: > > >First and lastmost. There are ***NO*** Usenet rules. > > Sorry, you are wrong. > > >There are, however, many rule making wannabees that have strong preferences > >and want to see their name in lights on a webpage somewhere. > > Actually there are newsgroups where the rules were discussed. Then a > volunteer took it all and wrote it into a FAQ like document. This was long > ago. > > >Bottom posting made sense before the time of threading browsers. > > Usenet has always had threading browsers. From day one of Usenet. > > >Now, why would anybody post their attached reference text or their enclosed > >references before their comment? Not many would do this in an actual hard > >copy letter or a technical document. > > Because everybody I know reads from top to bottom. References, a.k.a. > footnotes, have nothing to do with here. No one I know uses them in > newsgroup posts. > > >The argument is moot and outdated and most prefer the top posting method > >because they have already read the previous posts and don't need to see it > >all again (waste of bandwidth and memory). > > No, most do it because they are lazy, and don't wish to have to deal with > the trimming that is required when you bottom post. And leaving all of it > below without trimming is the waste of bandwidth, and server storage space. > > > Most do not want to have to > >scroll to the bottom of a post only to scroll back up again to the top of > >the new post text either. > > I don't follow you here. With trimming you aren't scrolling very far. Why > would you ever be scrolling up again to the top? > > >Many prefer the headers with the text they belong to, not scrambled all over > >the post in a nested fashion. > > The worst scrambles I see are the top posters. Since they haven't trimmed > anything the level of quoting is so deep you can't read is going on. This > is made much worse by the lame Outlook Express that most people use for > news reading. It isn't smart enough to not chop up quoted lines. What is > really pathetic, is the software has had this bug for at least 10 years, > and Microsoft has shown no inclination to fix it. > > Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom). |