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superseded?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 19:14:20 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:

>
>Dave LaCourse wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 14:40:13 +0200, Arne <user@domain.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >Little guideness (also in my sig):
>>
>> And I noticed you posted properly. Thanks. Wasn't hard, was it?
>
>
>Actually, Arne agrees with us.

Hmm.. how rather ironic that someone got confused about who-said-what
in an interleaved posted thread....


> It's Jules and Andy that seem to have comprehension problems.

We have no comprehension problems whatsoever since we can both deal
with more than one style of post without it baffling us. You on the
other hand have so much difficulty comprehending it that you whine
about it and try to stop people doing it.

Top-posting. It's not rocket science.



andyt

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
 

On 10 Apr 2005 19:14:20 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:

>
>Dave LaCourse wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 14:40:13 +0200, Arne <user@domain.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >Little guideness (also in my sig):
>>
>> And I noticed you posted properly. Thanks. Wasn't hard, was it?
>
>
>Actually, Arne agrees with us.

Hmm.. how rather ironic that someone got confused about who-said-what
in an interleaved posted thread....


> It's Jules and Andy that seem to have comprehension problems.

We have no comprehension problems whatsoever since we can both deal
with more than one style of post without it baffling us. You on the
other hand have so much difficulty comprehending it that you whine
about it and try to stop people doing it.

Top-posting. It's not rocket science.



andyt

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
 

On 10 Apr 2005 19:14:20 -0700, gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:

>
>Dave LaCourse wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 14:40:13 +0200, Arne <user@domain.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >Little guideness (also in my sig):
>>
>> And I noticed you posted properly. Thanks. Wasn't hard, was it?
>
>
>Actually, Arne agrees with us.

Hmm.. how rather ironic that someone got confused about who-said-what
in an interleaved posted thread....


> It's Jules and Andy that seem to have comprehension problems.

We have no comprehension problems whatsoever since we can both deal
with more than one style of post without it baffling us. You on the
other hand have so much difficulty comprehending it that you whine
about it and try to stop people doing it.

Top-posting. It's not rocket science.



andyt

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
 

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.

So accepting other peoples choices when it not disturb others is no
problem. The problem comes when they try to turn everything upside down!

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.

Maybe you can see the "thread" in it, and you may even do so posting
mails p2p if you like, but news is not for those only who start a new
thread!

--
/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 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.

So accepting other peoples choices when it not disturb others is no
problem. The problem comes when they try to turn everything upside down!

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.

Maybe you can see the "thread" in it, and you may even do so posting
mails p2p if you like, but news is not for those only who start a new
thread!

--
/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 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.

So accepting other peoples choices when it not disturb others is no
problem. The problem comes when they try to turn everything upside down!

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.

Maybe you can see the "thread" in it, and you may even do so posting
mails p2p if you like, but news is not for those only who start a new
thread!

--
/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 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 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?



andyt

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
 

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 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?



andyt

Re: Newsgroup Etiquette
 

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 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?



andyt