Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
 

On 10 Apr 2005 11:01:53 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:

>
>Andy Turner wrote:
>> On 9 Apr 2005 20:50:17 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Mike Buckley wrote:
>> >> Why not just be an individualist and follow your own inclination,
>> >rather
>> >> than what the net police tell you??
>> >>
>> >
>> >Yeah - when your cell rings in a movie theater, go ahead and answer,
>> >then have a long, loud conversation. After all, whatever *you* want
>is
>> >the most important thing.
>>
>> As Jules points out, these are not comparable situations.
>
>Jules is wrong, and so are you. The situations are only a matter of
>degree.

Sure, but by changing the degree, you totally invalidate the
comparison. What I'm saying to you is that top-posting is accepted,
enjoyed and preferred by many people. And you try to compare this with
something that isn't. It's not a valid comparison *because* you have
changed the degree.


Ask yourself this. If top-posting was so bad, made such little sense
and bottom-posting was the obvious way, then why do so many people
top-post? You'd think they'd all be confused and want to change...no?



>There are plenty of rude cell phone behaviors, this one is just one
>most folks can agree on. But it's merely a preference, and the small
>minority prefers it, so by your logic, it's acceptable.

The *huge* difference is that rude mobile behaviour is only ever
acceptable to the perpetrator and is not something which is welcomed
by others around them. Top-posting on the other hand is not a problem
for *loads* of people. Your comparison is again invalid.


This is the bit you must ask yourself. If it's *so* bad, why do so
many people prefer it and have perfectly good conversations using it?

*Why* is that?


>> Remember
>> that top-posting is perfectly acceptable to and is the preferred
>style
>> for a great many people.
>
>Those who don't know any better, those who are purposefully rude

Why would people do this? Do you think that they're being rude on
purpose - to annoy you or something?

Is it *just* *not* *possible* that they actually prefer the style and
find it easier to use? Can you not appreciate that at all?


Try to appreciate that usenet is just a shared resource where people
post messages that other people see. No-one has to pander to your
preferences any more than you have to pander to theirs. If you have
trouble interpreting their posts then by all means ignore or killfile
them if you want to, but they have no obligation to change their
preference just to pander to those who can only understand one style
of post.


> or those who read everything from the last page to the first
> page - yup, that's true.

Hmm.. you're still showing that you don't understand that it's the
*quotes* that are presented in stack order - not the new text. With a
lack of understanding like this, I'm not so sure as your opinions on
it can really be taken seriously.



>> That's what makes it a preference.
>
>See the cell phone references above. Dream up some driving ones. Like
>this:
>
>You're left turning out of a business onto a five-lane street. (Two
>lanes in either direction and a turn lane.) The car in front of you is
>also turning left. You wait and wait and wait - the turn lane is
>clear, the traffic from the right is clear, and the other guy isn't
>going. Yup, that's right, when he finally goes, it's because traffic
>is clear in both directions. He's held you up because of his
>preference. You, of course, celebrate his preference, right?

I'm not sure of the specifics of your analogy because I'm in the UK
and I dunno what a turn lane is (and presumably the left/right is the
other way around). However, I notice that you present yet another
analogy - if your complaints WRT top-posting are valid, why do you
have to resort to so many analogies just to make your point? Are you
perhaps acknowledging that your complaints don't sound so valid when
presented within the actual topic...



>> >Or, like most of the rest of us learned before first grade, we could
>> >imagine that the world does not revolve around me, me, me.
>>
>> Indeed it doesn't and therefore you can't expect everyone to adopt
>> *your* preferences.
>
>Oh, but if it were just *my* preference, I wouldn't be having this
>conversation with you. But it isn't. The netiquette has existed for
>quite some time before either one of us entered usenet. As I said
>before, if you can find anywhere even remotely official-looking that
>supports top-posting as a preferred method, go ahead and link it.
>History *and* popular opinion stand against you.

Interesting word you use - "History". Also interesting that you
appreciate that this netiquette has been around "for quite some time".
What you have to appreciate here is that times have changed. The
internet technologies and the demographics and behaviour of users has
changed dramatically in this time. Hence so have people's preferences.
Essentially, you're just behind the times and whining about standards
that seemed important in 1990. Do you still like your web pages to be
static HTML and animated GIFs? Because that's the era you're harking
back to. The RFC's probably contain various things that seem
ludicrously out of date these days.

Learn some new tricks. There's more than one way to make a usenet
post, and neither preference is wrong or invalid. Just another
preference.

Someone laying out a post in a stack style really shouldn't be enough
to confuse you, it really shouldn't...


andyt

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
 

On 10 Apr 2005 10:35:53 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:

>
>Andy Turner wrote:
>> On 8 Apr 2005 13:01:37 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Ronny wrote:
>> >> "charles blassberg" <blassberg@email.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:3bn87uF6hcd95U1@individual.net...
>> >> > Can we pls keep on topic within a thread?
>> >>
>> >> This is usenet, offtopic is part of the fun time, get used to it.
>> >
>> >And what's even more humorous is that the meta-discussion couldn't
>just
>> >reside in the original thread - no, perish the thought - it had to
>> >spawn TWO new threads, including this one! On-topic, LOL.
>> >
>> >Let's all start posting in all-caps, HTML, with attached binaries.
>> >After all, any preference is valid, right?
>>
>> If a preference works for a great many people (as top-posting does),
>> then it must be valid.
>
>Then driving the speed limit in the passing lane is valid.

Is this a situation where you'd like them to move out of the way so as
you can drive above the speed limit? If so, then I don't see the
problem and it's amusing to see which behaviour you think is wrong.


> As is almost universal cell phone use in public.

This happens all the time in the UK, there are only a few places where
it is frowned upon. In those scenarios it is universally frowned upon
and no-one does it. Hence it doesn't compare to top-posting, which is
welcomed by a great many people.


>> I don't see thousands of people posting in
>> all-caps. Your analogy therefore is not valid.
>
>It's a preference, isn't it? Just a matter of degree.

And by changing that degree, you make it incomparable. Thousands upon
thousands of people enjoy top-posting and prefer it. Who exactly are
*you* to say that they are wrong?

Let's say you happen across a thread where 4 or 5 people have had a
conversation entirely by top-posting. The thread has ended, no-one got
confused and people said what they wanted to say. Now then, what would
be your problem with that? What exactly would these people have done
wrong in your eyes? And, perhaps crucially, what relevance would your
opinion on their thread have to them? Why would they care what you
thought about their thread?


>> Do you think all usenet posts should be in English, since that is
>> your preferred language?
>
>In groups that are customarily English, yes.

That's good. What about in other language groups?


> But I do see your strawman attempt.

Oh dear. This is no strawman (especially since I *asked* for your
opinion instead of supposing it), just helping you to see your
prejudices.

Of course, if you want to explain why that was a strawman, go right
ahead.



andyt

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
 

On 10 Apr 2005 10:35:53 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:

>
>Andy Turner wrote:
>> On 8 Apr 2005 13:01:37 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Ronny wrote:
>> >> "charles blassberg" <blassberg@email.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:3bn87uF6hcd95U1@individual.net...
>> >> > Can we pls keep on topic within a thread?
>> >>
>> >> This is usenet, offtopic is part of the fun time, get used to it.
>> >
>> >And what's even more humorous is that the meta-discussion couldn't
>just
>> >reside in the original thread - no, perish the thought - it had to
>> >spawn TWO new threads, including this one! On-topic, LOL.
>> >
>> >Let's all start posting in all-caps, HTML, with attached binaries.
>> >After all, any preference is valid, right?
>>
>> If a preference works for a great many people (as top-posting does),
>> then it must be valid.
>
>Then driving the speed limit in the passing lane is valid.

Is this a situation where you'd like them to move out of the way so as
you can drive above the speed limit? If so, then I don't see the
problem and it's amusing to see which behaviour you think is wrong.


> As is almost universal cell phone use in public.

This happens all the time in the UK, there are only a few places where
it is frowned upon. In those scenarios it is universally frowned upon
and no-one does it. Hence it doesn't compare to top-posting, which is
welcomed by a great many people.


>> I don't see thousands of people posting in
>> all-caps. Your analogy therefore is not valid.
>
>It's a preference, isn't it? Just a matter of degree.

And by changing that degree, you make it incomparable. Thousands upon
thousands of people enjoy top-posting and prefer it. Who exactly are
*you* to say that they are wrong?

Let's say you happen across a thread where 4 or 5 people have had a
conversation entirely by top-posting. The thread has ended, no-one got
confused and people said what they wanted to say. Now then, what would
be your problem with that? What exactly would these people have done
wrong in your eyes? And, perhaps crucially, what relevance would your
opinion on their thread have to them? Why would they care what you
thought about their thread?


>> Do you think all usenet posts should be in English, since that is
>> your preferred language?
>
>In groups that are customarily English, yes.

That's good. What about in other language groups?


> But I do see your strawman attempt.

Oh dear. This is no strawman (especially since I *asked* for your
opinion instead of supposing it), just helping you to see your
prejudices.

Of course, if you want to explain why that was a strawman, go right
ahead.



andyt

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
 

On 10 Apr 2005 21:01:37 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:

>
>Jules wrote:
>> You're not married are you?
>
>Sadly, we proper-posters are often happily married, with children.

Why sadly?


>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.

Er... didn't you start this by whining in the first place.... hmm...


>Get a life, Jules.

LOL! This from a fella who gets upset about the way people lay their
posts out....



andyt

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
 

On 10 Apr 2005 21:01:37 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:

>
>Jules wrote:
>> You're not married are you?
>
>Sadly, we proper-posters are often happily married, with children.

Why sadly?


>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.

Er... didn't you start this by whining in the first place.... hmm...


>Get a life, Jules.

LOL! This from a fella who gets upset about the way people lay their
posts out....



andyt

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
 

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 09:57:47 +0100, Peter Bell <peter@invalid.org.uk>
wrote:

>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!

OK, so perhaps it's a few people's opinions collated! The point still
remains! I'd expect the page to be written by a single person anyway -
even if he quotes sources that have the same opinion (which of course,
he *would* do wouldn't he!).


>> (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?

The section that I thinking of hasn't changed in a long time AFAIK. I
honestly don't think anyone would bother to revise it, regardless of
the changes in usage we have seen over the years.



andyt

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
 

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 09:57:47 +0100, Peter Bell <peter@invalid.org.uk>
wrote:

>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!

OK, so perhaps it's a few people's opinions collated! The point still
remains! I'd expect the page to be written by a single person anyway -
even if he quotes sources that have the same opinion (which of course,
he *would* do wouldn't he!).


>> (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?

The section that I thinking of hasn't changed in a long time AFAIK. I
honestly don't think anyone would bother to revise it, regardless of
the changes in usage we have seen over the years.



andyt

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
 

On 10 Apr 2005 11:01:53 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:

>
>Andy Turner wrote:
>> On 9 Apr 2005 20:50:17 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Mike Buckley wrote:
>> >> Why not just be an individualist and follow your own inclination,
>> >rather
>> >> than what the net police tell you??
>> >>
>> >
>> >Yeah - when your cell rings in a movie theater, go ahead and answer,
>> >then have a long, loud conversation. After all, whatever *you* want
>is
>> >the most important thing.
>>
>> As Jules points out, these are not comparable situations.
>
>Jules is wrong, and so are you. The situations are only a matter of
>degree.

Sure, but by changing the degree, you totally invalidate the
comparison. What I'm saying to you is that top-posting is accepted,
enjoyed and preferred by many people. And you try to compare this with
something that isn't. It's not a valid comparison *because* you have
changed the degree.


Ask yourself this. If top-posting was so bad, made such little sense
and bottom-posting was the obvious way, then why do so many people
top-post? You'd think they'd all be confused and want to change...no?



>There are plenty of rude cell phone behaviors, this one is just one
>most folks can agree on. But it's merely a preference, and the small
>minority prefers it, so by your logic, it's acceptable.

The *huge* difference is that rude mobile behaviour is only ever
acceptable to the perpetrator and is not something which is welcomed
by others around them. Top-posting on the other hand is not a problem
for *loads* of people. Your comparison is again invalid.


This is the bit you must ask yourself. If it's *so* bad, why do so
many people prefer it and have perfectly good conversations using it?

*Why* is that?


>> Remember
>> that top-posting is perfectly acceptable to and is the preferred
>style
>> for a great many people.
>
>Those who don't know any better, those who are purposefully rude

Why would people do this? Do you think that they're being rude on
purpose - to annoy you or something?

Is it *just* *not* *possible* that they actually prefer the style and
find it easier to use? Can you not appreciate that at all?


Try to appreciate that usenet is just a shared resource where people
post messages that other people see. No-one has to pander to your
preferences any more than you have to pander to theirs. If you have
trouble interpreting their posts then by all means ignore or killfile
them if you want to, but they have no obligation to change their
preference just to pander to those who can only understand one style
of post.


> or those who read everything from the last page to the first
> page - yup, that's true.

Hmm.. you're still showing that you don't understand that it's the
*quotes* that are presented in stack order - not the new text. With a
lack of understanding like this, I'm not so sure as your opinions on
it can really be taken seriously.



>> That's what makes it a preference.
>
>See the cell phone references above. Dream up some driving ones. Like
>this:
>
>You're left turning out of a business onto a five-lane street. (Two
>lanes in either direction and a turn lane.) The car in front of you is
>also turning left. You wait and wait and wait - the turn lane is
>clear, the traffic from the right is clear, and the other guy isn't
>going. Yup, that's right, when he finally goes, it's because traffic
>is clear in both directions. He's held you up because of his
>preference. You, of course, celebrate his preference, right?

I'm not sure of the specifics of your analogy because I'm in the UK
and I dunno what a turn lane is (and presumably the left/right is the
other way around). However, I notice that you present yet another
analogy - if your complaints WRT top-posting are valid, why do you
have to resort to so many analogies just to make your point? Are you
perhaps acknowledging that your complaints don't sound so valid when
presented within the actual topic...



>> >Or, like most of the rest of us learned before first grade, we could
>> >imagine that the world does not revolve around me, me, me.
>>
>> Indeed it doesn't and therefore you can't expect everyone to adopt
>> *your* preferences.
>
>Oh, but if it were just *my* preference, I wouldn't be having this
>conversation with you. But it isn't. The netiquette has existed for
>quite some time before either one of us entered usenet. As I said
>before, if you can find anywhere even remotely official-looking that
>supports top-posting as a preferred method, go ahead and link it.
>History *and* popular opinion stand against you.

Interesting word you use - "History". Also interesting that you
appreciate that this netiquette has been around "for quite some time".
What you have to appreciate here is that times have changed. The
internet technologies and the demographics and behaviour of users has
changed dramatically in this time. Hence so have people's preferences.
Essentially, you're just behind the times and whining about standards
that seemed important in 1990. Do you still like your web pages to be
static HTML and animated GIFs? Because that's the era you're harking
back to. The RFC's probably contain various things that seem
ludicrously out of date these days.

Learn some new tricks. There's more than one way to make a usenet
post, and neither preference is wrong or invalid. Just another
preference.

Someone laying out a post in a stack style really shouldn't be enough
to confuse you, it really shouldn't...


andyt

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
 

On 10 Apr 2005 10:35:53 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:

>
>Andy Turner wrote:
>> On 8 Apr 2005 13:01:37 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Ronny wrote:
>> >> "charles blassberg" <blassberg@email.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:3bn87uF6hcd95U1@individual.net...
>> >> > Can we pls keep on topic within a thread?
>> >>
>> >> This is usenet, offtopic is part of the fun time, get used to it.
>> >
>> >And what's even more humorous is that the meta-discussion couldn't
>just
>> >reside in the original thread - no, perish the thought - it had to
>> >spawn TWO new threads, including this one! On-topic, LOL.
>> >
>> >Let's all start posting in all-caps, HTML, with attached binaries.
>> >After all, any preference is valid, right?
>>
>> If a preference works for a great many people (as top-posting does),
>> then it must be valid.
>
>Then driving the speed limit in the passing lane is valid.

Is this a situation where you'd like them to move out of the way so as
you can drive above the speed limit? If so, then I don't see the
problem and it's amusing to see which behaviour you think is wrong.


> As is almost universal cell phone use in public.

This happens all the time in the UK, there are only a few places where
it is frowned upon. In those scenarios it is universally frowned upon
and no-one does it. Hence it doesn't compare to top-posting, which is
welcomed by a great many people.


>> I don't see thousands of people posting in
>> all-caps. Your analogy therefore is not valid.
>
>It's a preference, isn't it? Just a matter of degree.

And by changing that degree, you make it incomparable. Thousands upon
thousands of people enjoy top-posting and prefer it. Who exactly are
*you* to say that they are wrong?

Let's say you happen across a thread where 4 or 5 people have had a
conversation entirely by top-posting. The thread has ended, no-one got
confused and people said what they wanted to say. Now then, what would
be your problem with that? What exactly would these people have done
wrong in your eyes? And, perhaps crucially, what relevance would your
opinion on their thread have to them? Why would they care what you
thought about their thread?


>> Do you think all usenet posts should be in English, since that is
>> your preferred language?
>
>In groups that are customarily English, yes.

That's good. What about in other language groups?


> But I do see your strawman attempt.

Oh dear. This is no strawman (especially since I *asked* for your
opinion instead of supposing it), just helping you to see your
prejudices.

Of course, if you want to explain why that was a strawman, go right
ahead.



andyt

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
 

On 10 Apr 2005 21:01:37 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:

>
>Jules wrote:
>> You're not married are you?
>
>Sadly, we proper-posters are often happily married, with children.

Why sadly?


>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.

Er... didn't you start this by whining in the first place.... hmm...


>Get a life, Jules.

LOL! This from a fella who gets upset about the way people lay their
posts out....



andyt