Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Growth in postings at slr-systems

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 6:32:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

It's a new group ... but the growth is happening:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital.s...

376 posts in Nov.
560 to this date in Dec.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 1:12:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Now if everyone would learn to not include prior posts, selectively quote
posts, or top post, as considerate and knowledgeable posters have been doing
since before Usenet, this group might be readable. The comments of bottom
posters are precisely where they belong. ;) 
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 12:30:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
> It's a new group ... but the growth is happening:
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital.s...
>
> 376 posts in Nov.
> 560 to this date in Dec.
>
Thats 20% complaints about posting in the wrong group.
20% complaints about the wrong sig.
10% complaints about top posting
40% idiot comments re Sigma.
Some growth!
KenH
--
Tear out HAIR to Reply.
Press any key to delete. Press ENTER twice to save.
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 12:56:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:cpku9f$1nh$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
> It's a new group ... but the growth is happening:
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital.s...
>
> 376 posts in Nov.
> 560 to this date in Dec.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.
>
> --
> -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
> -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
> -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
> -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
------------------------
Prey Tell Alan...
What precisely does the "Shootin" have in the "context of DSLR photography"?
Last time I looked film was all the go. You still use film too, don't you?
From the Shootin rulz:
(Snipped) 35mm sized cameras are the expectation. It is up to the
photographer to scan and format the image for the SI. (AMDT 2).

I might change my mind when the Shootin goes digital but right now you are
engaged in discouraged activity, Alan.
From your site:
Discouraged:
posting links to personal photo galleries or images, not in the context of
DSLR photography.

I know the actual charter says 4 lines but not long ago you got up me for
pointing out your sig was too long... Lo and behold, you must have thought
so too! So which is it mate? The one that suits your purpose now or the one
you originally believed in?

Also from your site:
a.. Discouraged:
(snipped) signatures of more than 3 lines, (snipped again)

So... Correct me if I'm wrong Sheriff but... If you are going to be a self
appointed guardian of the group's charter and make a habit of pulling up
those not adhering to it... Shouldn't you be setting an example?

From where I read things, you are saying: "Do as I say not as I do" and
basically behaving like a hypocrite. How about putting your own house in
order before getting into others with less knowledge of the charter?

Doug
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 12:56:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia wrote:

> ------------------------
> Prey Tell Alan...

That's "Pray tell", but we never expected anything literate from you...

> What precisely does the "Shootin" have in the "context of DSLR photography"?
> Last time I looked film was all the go. You still use film too, don't you?
> From the Shootin rulz:
> (Snipped) 35mm sized cameras are the expectation. It is up to the
> photographer to scan and format the image for the SI. (AMDT 2).

What's your point? What's in my sig is what's in my sig. The sig has no
requirement to be on-topic in any group. And yes film is lovely stuff.

> I might change my mind when the Shootin goes digital but right now you are
> engaged in discouraged activity, Alan.
> From your site:
> Discouraged:
> posting links to personal photo galleries or images, not in the context of
> DSLR photography.

And where the hell do I violate that?

> I know the actual charter says 4 lines but not long ago you got up me for
> pointing out your sig was too long... Lo and behold, you must have thought
> so too! So which is it mate? The one that suits your purpose now or the one
> you originally believed in?

The proposed 4 line sig came from someone else. I used to have a two line sig
and thought 3 was a good upper limit. As my sig is mainly dedicated to the
benefit of others and not myself I really have no huge compunction in increasing
that to 4 lines. In any case, that is what is in the charter for rpd.slr-s.

>
> Also from your site:
> a.. Discouraged:
> (snipped) signatures of more than 3 lines, (snipped again)

Thanks, I've fixed that. Anything else that's inconsistent, I'd be glad to hear
from you!

> So... Correct me if I'm wrong Sheriff but... If you are going to be a self
> appointed guardian of the group's charter and make a habit of pulling up
> those not adhering to it... Shouldn't you be setting an example?

My example is fine and on the dot per the charter. Ron Lacey's ridiculous,
long, self serving and commercial signature is a horse of an entirely different
color.

>
> From where I read things, you are saying: "Do as I say not as I do" and
> basically behaving like a hypocrite. How about putting your own house in
> order before getting into others with less knowledge of the charter?

You're quite boring dear boy. What's _in_ my sig has nothing to do with what
the charter says. The charter sets 4 lines as a guideline.

Clear 'nuff? Need me to read for you some more?

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 1:03:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
> It's a new group ... but the growth is happening:
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital.s...
>
> 376 posts in Nov.
> 560 to this date in Dec.

Erm, they way I read the table is the other way round!

November 560 posts
Decemeber 388 posts

Puzzled!
David
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 2:33:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

KenH wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>It's a new group ... but the growth is happening:
>>
>>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital.s...
>>
>>376 posts in Nov.
>>560 to this date in Dec.
>>
>
> Thats 20% complaints about posting in the wrong group.
> 20% complaints about the wrong sig.
> 10% complaints about top posting
> 40% idiot comments re Sigma.
> Some growth!

From small acorns... and of course your list of insta-stats is far off the mark.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 2:35:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>It's a new group ... but the growth is happening:
>>
>>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital.s...
>>
>>376 posts in Nov.
>>560 to this date in Dec.
>
>
> Erm, they way I read the table is the other way round!
>
> November 560 posts
> Decemeber 388 posts
>
> Puzzled!

*BLUSH* You're right of course. But simple extrapolations of the result to
date indicates that Dec. should have a lot more posts than Nov. Sorry about that!!

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 4:34:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"jfitz" <jfitz@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:7rydncGR3Ju6xyPcRVn-rA@comcast.com...
> Now if everyone would learn to not include prior posts, selectively quote
> posts, or top post, as considerate and knowledgeable posters have been
doing
> since before Usenet, this group might be readable. The comments of bottom
> posters are precisely where they belong. ;) 
>
I agree entirely.
I bottom post to this group because it is "encouraged" in the charter but I
much prefer to click the next messasge and start reading from the first
line. The only thing more annoying than scrolling through dozens of lines of
irrelevant drivle is those half baked idiots who insert cryptic one liners
into other people's posts and think that is a nice way to reply.
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 7:43:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
[]
> *BLUSH* You're right of course. But simple extrapolations of the
> result to date indicates that Dec. should have a lot more posts than
> Nov. Sorry about that!!
> Cheers,
> Alan

But I agree with your point - postings to the new groups are doing well
(for this stage in their evolution), with this group being well ahead as
was expected.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 7:45:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia wrote:
> "jfitz" <jfitz@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:7rydncGR3Ju6xyPcRVn-rA@comcast.com...
>> Now if everyone would learn to not include prior posts, selectively
>> quote posts, or top post, as considerate and knowledgeable posters
>> have been doing since before Usenet, this group might be readable.
>> The comments of bottom posters are precisely where they belong. ;) 
>>
> I agree entirely.
> I bottom post to this group because it is "encouraged" in the charter
> but I much prefer to click the next messasge and start reading from
> the first line. The only thing more annoying than scrolling through
> dozens of lines of irrelevant drivle is those half baked idiots who
> insert cryptic one liners

Couldn't agree more... ;^)

> into other people's posts and think that is
> a nice way to reply.
December 15, 2004 12:42:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <7rydncGR3Ju6xyPcRVn-rA@comcast.com>, jfitz@bigfoot.com says...
>
>Now if everyone would learn to not include prior posts, selectively quote
>posts, or top post, as considerate and knowledgeable posters have been doing
>since before Usenet, this group might be readable. The comments of bottom
>posters are precisely where they belong. ;) 

It is very interesting that 50% of the Usenet wants bottom-posts only, and the
other 50% wants top-posts only. At least no one is in the minority there.

Hunt
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 1:42:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Hunt <noone@hunt.com> wrote:

> It is very interesting that 50% of the Usenet wants bottom-posts only, and the
> other 50% wants top-posts only. At least no one is in the minority there.

The only good reason to top-post is as a way of pointing out that you have
nothing of value to contribute and your posts can safely be skipped.

Top-posting is completely stupid, and has no redeeming value whatsoever.
If you don't need to quote for context, well, then don't quote at all.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 2:18:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Hunt posted:
> In article <7rydncGR3Ju6xyPcRVn-rA@comcast.com>, jfitz@bigfoot.com says...
> >
> >Now if everyone would learn to not include prior posts, selectively quote
> >posts, or top post, as considerate and knowledgeable posters have been doing
> >since before Usenet, this group might be readable. The comments of bottom
> >posters are precisely where they belong. ;) 
>
> It is very interesting that 50% of the Usenet wants bottom-posts only, and the
> other 50% wants top-posts only. At least no one is in the minority there.
>
> Hunt

It's the so-called "missionary" effect.

--
Petros
Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 4:18:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Jeremy Nixon wrote:
> Hunt <noone@hunt.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It is very interesting that 50% of the Usenet wants bottom-posts only, and the
>>other 50% wants top-posts only. At least no one is in the minority there.
>
>
> The only good reason to top-post is as a way of pointing out that you have
> nothing of value to contribute and your posts can safely be skipped.
>
> Top-posting is completely stupid, and has no redeeming value whatsoever.
> If you don't need to quote for context, well, then don't quote at all.
>
Sigh. It'd somehow be more effective advocacy if those with different
views weren't castigated. Some folks come in, innocently top post, get
buried in criticism, and soon decide to top post just to be annoying or
righteous.

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 7:38:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 01:18:53 GMT, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Sigh. It'd somehow be more effective advocacy if those with different
>views weren't castigated. Some folks come in, innocently top post, get
>buried in criticism, and soon decide to top post just to be annoying or
>righteous.

Anyone who would rather top post to be "annoying or righteous" rather
than follow netiquette and the mores of the group is someone who I
don't want to read, so into my killfile they go. It makes a great
twit filter.

ObDLSR: I needed to attach the tripod mount ring to my 70-200 lens to
try my camera on a tripod at a camera store (going out of business
sale). The store owner tried to help me, and in doing so she turned
my 300D camera body "opening up" as she removed the lens (I had been
holding it opening down as I was trying to remove the lens), intending
to set the lens "opening down" on the counter.. ARUGH. I immediately
turned the camera face down, to minimize dust falling into the
opening. I can clean dust off of the lens "opening" much easier than
I can clean dust off of the sensor. I don't understand why she
thought that putting my camera "opening up" was a good idea, or why
putting the lens "opening down" was advisable (the lens cap was on, so
it was safe and easy to set it on the cap).

jc
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 3:50:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Kibo informs me that "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> stated
that:

>Alan Browne wrote:
>> It's a new group ... but the growth is happening:
>>
>> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital.s...
>>
>> 376 posts in Nov.
>> 560 to this date in Dec.
>
>Erm, they way I read the table is the other way round!
>
>November 560 posts
>Decemeber 388 posts

It's now showing 560 for Nov, & 415 for Dec.

It's only halfway through the month, but we've already gotten nearly as
many posts as for the whole month of November. I'd certainly describe
that as growth.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 1:08:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:cpku9f$1nh$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
> It's a new group ... but the growth is happening:
>
Mostly from you it seems.
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 1:00:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Bottom posting is rude to those that use 3 pane, threaded newsreaders.
(The vast majority today of usenet posters). Rather than being able to
read most content, by mearly navigating the subject list. People are
forced to change pane focus and scroll through the same info, over and
over again just to get to the meat.

Back in the day of unthreaded, single view readers... Less posting, and
sometimes days and weeks between thread responses, bottom posting was
considered better etiquette.

Bottom posting etiquette folks, are just trying to keep the USENET in
the dark ages...

Jeremy Nixon wrote:
> Hunt <noone@hunt.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It is very interesting that 50% of the Usenet wants bottom-posts only, and the
>>other 50% wants top-posts only. At least no one is in the minority there.
>
>
> The only good reason to top-post is as a way of pointing out that you have
> nothing of value to contribute and your posts can safely be skipped.
>
> Top-posting is completely stupid, and has no redeeming value whatsoever.
> If you don't need to quote for context, well, then don't quote at all.
>
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 10:19:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

fortknight <nobody@home.com> writes:
> Jeremy Nixon wrote:
>> Hunt <noone@hunt.com> wrote:

>> Top-posting is completely stupid, and has no redeeming value
>> whatsoever. If you don't need to quote for context, well, then
>> don't quote at all.

> Bottom posting is rude to those that use 3 pane, threaded
> newsreaders. (The vast majority today of usenet posters).

I'be always used one of those. I consider top-posting annoying.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
========================================================================
When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to?
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 10:19:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
> fortknight <nobody@home.com> writes:
>
>>Jeremy Nixon wrote:
>>
>>>Hunt <noone@hunt.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Top-posting is completely stupid, and has no redeeming value
>>>whatsoever. If you don't need to quote for context, well, then
>>>don't quote at all.
>
>
>>Bottom posting is rude to those that use 3 pane, threaded
>>newsreaders. (The vast majority today of usenet posters).
>
>
> I'be always used one of those. I consider top-posting annoying.

LOL. I am impressed with the re-threading of the qoute. And you know,
there will never be a good consistent answer to the question. Except
that it is known to rise the ire of some folk who would do well to
consider meditation or other stress reduction activities or to try one
of the many good decafs now available in the marketplace.
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 10:19:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Gisle Hannemyr <gisle+njus@ifi.uio.no> writes:

> fortknight <nobody@home.com> writes:
> > Jeremy Nixon wrote:
> >> Hunt <noone@hunt.com> wrote:
>
> >> Top-posting is completely stupid, and has no redeeming value
> >> whatsoever. If you don't need to quote for context, well, then
> >> don't quote at all.
>
> > Bottom posting is rude to those that use 3 pane, threaded
> > newsreaders. (The vast majority today of usenet posters).
>
> I'be always used one of those. I consider top-posting annoying.

It's a toss up really--I'm not sure if top posting is more annoying,
or the people who try to justify it, or bottom posters who don't
friggin trim citations.

The newsreader argument is exceedingly lame. If your newsreader lacks
keyboard shortcuts to scroll down quickly, you're using the wrong
newsreader, IMNSHO.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 2:09:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

fortknight wrote:

> Bottom posting is rude to those that use 3 pane, threaded newsreaders.
> (The vast majority today of usenet posters). Rather than being able to
> read most content, by mearly navigating the subject list. People are
> forced to change pane focus and scroll through the same info, over and
> over again just to get to the meat.
>
> Back in the day of unthreaded, single view readers... Less posting, and
> sometimes days and weeks between thread responses, bottom posting was
> considered better etiquette.
>
> Bottom posting etiquette folks, are just trying to keep the USENET in
> the dark ages...

You're simply wrong. A posting on NG, regardless of the newsreader, should be
readable in chronological order. post, reply, counter-reply, etc. with
appropriate contextual snipping. Consider that many posts are read months or
years afterwards on services like Google Groups. A single posting with top-p
material is confusing to read.

A: because it's hard to read
Q: Why?
A: No
Q: Should I top post?


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 2:12:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

fortknight wrote:

>
> LOL. I am impressed with the re-threading of the qoute. And you know,
> there will never be a good consistent answer to the question. Except
> that it is known to rise the ire of some folk who would do well to
> consider meditation or other stress reduction activities or to try one
> of the many good decafs now available in the marketplace.


Discomfort with top posting is that it often takes more effort to understand
what the reply refers to. Posted in order, and with appropriate snipping, the
reader clearly gets the gist of the message quickly.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
December 19, 2004 5:30:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in
news:cq493b$6nc$1@inews.gazeta.pl:

> You're simply wrong. A posting on NG, regardless of the newsreader,
> should be readable in chronological order. post, reply,
> counter-reply, etc. with appropriate contextual snipping. Consider
> that many posts are read months or years afterwards on services like
> Google Groups. A single posting with top-p material is confusing to
> read.
>
> A: because it's hard to read
> Q: Why?
> A: No
> Q: Should I top post?

I have to agree with this. The only time I get annoyed is when I open a
post full screen (1280x1024) and can't see the reply because the screen is
completely filled with quoted text. Even worse when I scroll to see one
line of reply.

Why can't people select and delete (snip) what's irrelevant to their reply?


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 12-Nov-04)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"



-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 7:04:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

fortknight wrote:

> Bottom posting is rude to those that use 3 pane, threaded newsreaders.
> (The vast majority today of usenet posters). Rather than being able to
> read most content, by mearly navigating the subject list. People are
> forced to change pane focus and scroll through the same info, over and
> over again just to get to the meat.
>
Vast majority?? Have real numbers?

IAE, it's not difficult for some of us three pane readers to not only
navigate with ease, but to trim replies and bottom post. Just because
you're on a Mac with a minority News Client doesn't mean it's difficult
to do it right.

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 7:07:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

fortknight wrote:

> Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
>>
>> I'be always used one of those. I consider top-posting annoying.
>
>
> LOL. I am impressed with the re-threading of the qoute. And you know,
> there will never be a good consistent answer to the question. Except
> that it is known to rise the ire of some folk who would do well to
> consider meditation or other stress reduction activities or to try one
> of the many good decafs now available in the marketplace.

Amen to that. Only when the subject rises to the level of extreme
righteousness or fervor does it become really annoying.

Or being pig headed and spamming the group with un trimmed, top posted
and excessive self serving sig lines. Right now, there's only one putz
who regularly does that.

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 7:14:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

fortknight wrote:

> I use thunderbird on OSX, because it is the best that I can find. And I
> can find no other reader that seems to work as well. And as far as I
> have discovered, I am unable to scroll down the threaded message list,
> and also scroll down through the message to find the meat of the post.

Try this: Go to View->Messages->Threads with Unread.

Now use just the space bar. With a touch of experience it's wicked fast
getting through a whole thread. Letter K marks the whole thread as
killed; R for read, and the space bar again puts you at the top of the
next thread.
>
> It's not the newsreader that makes this difficult it is inherent to the
> design of the 3 pane reader. Why should the visible part of the message
> in the message pane, be redundant quoted material, as opposed to new
> material to the thread?? In your case, the bottom post was not that bad
> because you so drastically trimmed. Drastic trimming, and short posts
> make it so that no one is really harmed in either posting method.
>

You hit a main peg. If people trimmed properly, almost all that goes away.

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 8:57:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Thank you for pointing out the method. As one that tends to live with
one hand on the mouse (which works suprisingly well when reading stuff),
I will give it a try...

But I would like to point out to the trimming issue. You do NOT have to
read all the stuff below. Really. But it is left there, if, you know,
it is months later, or you have stumbled upon the post by accident. You
could, if you wanted, look down and get a clue as to what my post is
about. But you know, if you are up to date and your memory is still
clear, or you had just read the prior post, there is no reason to read
past the end of my post.

Cheers


John McWilliams wrote:
> fortknight wrote:
>
>> I use thunderbird on OSX, because it is the best that I can find. And
>> I can find no other reader that seems to work as well. And as far as
>> I have discovered, I am unable to scroll down the threaded message
>> list, and also scroll down through the message to find the meat of the
>> post.
>
>
> Try this: Go to View->Messages->Threads with Unread.
>
> Now use just the space bar. With a touch of experience it's wicked fast
> getting through a whole thread. Letter K marks the whole thread as
> killed; R for read, and the space bar again puts you at the top of the
> next thread.
>
>>
>> It's not the newsreader that makes this difficult it is inherent to
>> the design of the 3 pane reader. Why should the visible part of the
>> message in the message pane, be redundant quoted material, as opposed
>> to new material to the thread?? In your case, the bottom post was not
>> that bad because you so drastically trimmed. Drastic trimming, and
>> short posts make it so that no one is really harmed in either posting
>> method.
>>
>
> You hit a main peg. If people trimmed properly, almost all that goes away.
>
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 10:35:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

fortknight <nobody@home.com> wrote:

> And as far as I have discovered, I am unable to scroll down the threaded
> message list, and also scroll down through the message to find the meat
> of the post.

Look harder. I bet you can. If you can't, that's a fatal flaw in the user
interface. It's already an interface flaw if it wasn't obvious to you.

> It's not the newsreader that makes this difficult it is inherent to the
> design of the 3 pane reader.

No, it's not. Anyway, I have never understood why anyone ever thought
the 3-pane interface was a good idea. All it does is waste space showing
you things you don't need to see, and leave not enough room for any of it.
And, of course, cause confusion as to what should have input focus at
any given moment. You can still do it properly, but even if you do, it's
confusing and not very useful.

But inability to navigate a thread and scroll the message view is most
certainly *not* inherent to the design. It's been done properly.

> Why should the visible part of the message in the message pane, be
> redundant quoted material, as opposed to new material to the thread??

It shouldn't. Why do you think I ever said it should? On the other hand,
why should the visible part of the message be limited to a tiny slit below
a whole other "pane" showing you something you don't need to see right now?

> As to the quote that is at the bottom of the message, for the exact same
> reason footnotes are at the bottom of the page, or endnotes are at the
> end. It provides context for those that *need* context.

No, not really. What it does is force people to first start to read the
post, then discover that they have no idea what the person is talking
about. Then they must scroll down and wade through the fully-quoted,
entirely untrimmed previous message and make a guess as to which part
of it the person is referring to. Then they must scroll back up again
and start reading the message. Every single frigging time. Do you have
any idea how annoying that is? It does get to the point where you just
see the top-post, spend one second seeing if it makes sense without any
quoted context, and if not, skip it. See, it's unlikely that I read the
message you're replying to immediately before yours -- I probably read
it hours earlier, maybe even days earlier, and your message isn't going
to make any sense without something to remind me what you're talking
about.

Now, if you're just making a general reply to the thread or to the ideas
the person was talking about, and you don't need any quoted context to
set up your post -- if your post stands on its own as a monologue rather
than being part of a conversation -- then why quote anything? You don't
need it there. Thread context is available from the previous message in
the thread, available with one keystroke. It is, or should be, *easier*
to bring up the previous post in the thread than it is to scroll down and
see the quoted message, then scroll back up. So why include the fully
quoted message? Why quote anything at all?

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 10:35:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

> No, not really. What it does is force people to first start to read the
> post, then discover that they have no idea what the person is talking
> about. Then they must scroll down and wade through the fully-quoted,
> entirely untrimmed previous message and make a guess as to which part
> of it the person is referring to. Then they must scroll back up again
> and start reading the message. Every single frigging time. Do you have
> any idea how annoying that is?

No Jeremy, I don't. Because that Every single frigging time, almost
never happens to me. I am not Dori, nor a goldfish. My short term
memory is not that short. As a matter of fact do you know how
irritating it is to find original content, when forced to scan what I
read just a second ago, every single frigging time?

Fortunately, I try and make a reasonable contribution when I post. And
even here I am not really trying to start or contribute to a flame war.
But, I have reasons I really prefer top posters. It makes *my*
experience much better than bottom posters. And now I know that there
is no way that you and I can come to agreement that we may not prefer
our posting styles.

The only thing I have to offer to keep out of your killfile, is that I
really do contribute on-topic to many news groups. (For instance, I am
here because I am a fuji s2 owner, who has just dropped some coin for
some choice glass, and will probably upgrade to a new body in the
upcoming year. I have used this group to both increase my knowledge and
to share what I have learned). You just have to google me to find out.
(and have been doing so for many years). Occasionaly I get OT in
groups where OT works because of the audience of readers. And if you
choose to KF me, for posting style, well, then I am not convinced you
are the better for it, but to each their own.


Cheers
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 1:35:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

fortknight <nobody@home.com> wrote:

>Bottom posting is rude to those that use 3 pane, threaded newsreaders.

Inappropriately including irrelevant text is rude to everyone.

>Bottom posting etiquette folks, are just trying to keep the USENET in
>the dark ages...

People who don't quote and position their replies properly, are
simply lazy. Period.

--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 1:35:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Interleaved posting mearly offends all.... But why would "irrelevant"
following text be rude? Surely you don't have to read it... Unlike
interleaved text or bottom posting where I am forced to scan it to find
the message.

And as to being lazy, in most communication systems, and actually most
human systems are about approaching maximum laziness. Or making it
easier on folk. But unfortunately what is easier for you to read or to
write, is not what is easier for all to read or write.


Ken Tough wrote:
> fortknight <nobody@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Bottom posting is rude to those that use 3 pane, threaded newsreaders.
>
>
> Inappropriately including irrelevant text is rude to everyone.
>
>
>>Bottom posting etiquette folks, are just trying to keep the USENET in
>>the dark ages...
>
>
> People who don't quote and position their replies properly, are
> simply lazy. Period.
>
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 1:38:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

fortknight <nobody@home.com> wrote:

>It's not the newsreader that makes this difficult it is inherent to the
>design of the 3 pane reader. Why should the visible part of the message
>in the message pane, be redundant quoted material, as opposed to new
>material to the thread??

If it's redundant material, cut it out. Your keyboard has a delete
key. Use it.

>As to the quote that is at the bottom of the message, for the exact same
>reason footnotes are at the bottom of the page, or endnotes are at the
>end. It provides context for those that *need* context. Occasionally a
>post will appear odd, even with a threaded newsreader. In that case,
>the reader can look at the quoted context to see what they need for it
>to make sense. This is as opposed to FORCING the user to read
>information that they already *likely* know.

Footnotes are not for context, they are for additional, aside,
information. Context is provided by previous paragraphs. Most
threads will end up with people replying to various parts of a
post, such as this one. To place the reply in context within the
portion of the original post, some quoted text is added as above.

HTH,

--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 1:40:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>You're simply wrong. A posting on NG, regardless of the newsreader, should be
>readable in chronological order. post, reply, counter-reply, etc. with
>appropriate contextual snipping. Consider that many posts are read months or
>years afterwards on services like Google Groups. A single posting with top-p
>material is confusing to read.

And when we lose this battle, they'll be posting in HTML because
*bold* and -italics- make reading so much easier.

--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 1:40:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ken Tough wrote:
> And when we lose this battle, they'll be posting in HTML because
> *bold* and -italics- make reading so much easier.


I've only seen HTML text on usenet a few times, and come to think of it, it's
been over a year, maybe two. Those posters are usually called to heel and they
comply or go away after they're ignored enough.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 5:20:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Charles <fort514@mac.com> wrote:

> You can't post *bold* and /italics/ ?

You can use those conventions, yes, though I personally have never accepted
that *this* means bold -- it's used for emphasis, and boldface type is not;
italic type is, so *this* is italics to me. And /this/ is just ugly and I
would never use it.

Sure, I would love to have bold, italics, and certain other typographic
controls, and I would love to know that utf-8 support is widespread enough
to use that, too. But it's really a minor wish in the grand scheme of
things. And the way things are is *so* much better than those silly web
message boards with their flashing animations and difficult to read text
and graphical smileys and having to click and wait for pages to load just
to read the next post and on and on...

I do sometimes try to read the message boards at dpreview.com, but they
are so near to unusable that I only get the motivation to look at them
very infrequently.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
December 20, 2004 5:20:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <10scdnovle52eb@corp.supernews.com>, Jeremy Nixon
<jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:

> I do sometimes try to read the message boards at dpreview.com, but they
> are so near to unusable that I only get the motivation to look at them
> very infrequently.

I agree with you, don't want to see HTML or animations on Usenet. Some
dang Webtv users have even posted messages with music on a newsgroup I
read. Yuck. But with my current newsreader it just appears as html
source code.

I agree about the message boards at dpreview. I have never found a web
message board that was very usable but those that use vBulletin tend to
be somewhat usable.

--
Charles
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 5:27:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

fortknight <nobody@home.com> wrote:

> And this of little actual relevance as the new google hides ALL quoted
> text by default.

Why should I care what google does, exactly? That's just one news reading
interface, and not one that's any good, either.

> Secondly, would be the thread I am having a current conversation in, and
> again in this case, because I have a slight memory, I can probably pick
> up context from your reply, or if need be I can look below and see if
> that helps me understand the message.

Except that it doesn't help anyone see which part of the message you're
replying to, if it's a conversational style. It can take longer to figure
that out than it takes to read the post itself.

If that's not how you're posting, then the quoted text at the bottom just
makes no sense. The root of your argument seems to be that you are too
lazy to edit your posts, and proud of it. For example, in this post of
yours I'm replying to, no context was needed. What you wrote stood on its
own in the thread; no quotes were necessary to establish what you were
replying to. So -- what was the point of the quoted text at the bottom?
If I need the context because I'm reading that post next month and I'm not
sure what the thread was about, all I need to do is flip to the previous
post in the thread and, presto, there it is. So why include any quote at
all?

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 5:27:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Jeremy Nixon wrote:
> fortknight <nobody@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>>And this of little actual relevance as the new google hides ALL quoted
>>text by default.
>
>
> Why should I care what google does, exactly? That's just one news reading
> interface, and not one that's any good, either.

Two things, first are you saying you prefer interleaved posting? As
this is the style that you are choosing. Secondly, the OP of this
particular point brought up the point that you need to bottom post so
that when found on google people would understand. So if you choose to
respond to this, it should be in referance as to why one would care, not
why you should care, since I was not directly responding to you.

But feel free to jump in, but please do not act as if I was responding
directly to you. Which if you noted at the bottom of my previous post,
the one that you are responding to here, that it was not you that I was
responding to. That is why I sometimes leave these bits at the bottom
to help folks out. This is probably way more confusing than where the
quote are.

>>Secondly, would be the thread I am having a current conversation in, and
>>again in this case, because I have a slight memory, I can probably pick
>>up context from your reply, or if need be I can look below and see if
>>that helps me understand the message.
>
>
> Except that it doesn't help anyone see which part of the message you're
> replying to, if it's a conversational style. It can take longer to figure
> that out than it takes to read the post itself.
>
> If that's not how you're posting, then the quoted text at the bottom just
> makes no sense. The root of your argument seems to be that you are too
> lazy to edit your posts, and proud of it. For example, in this post of
> yours I'm replying to, no context was needed. What you wrote stood on its
> own in the thread; no quotes were necessary to establish what you were
> replying to. So -- what was the point of the quoted text at the bottom?
> If I need the context because I'm reading that post next month and I'm not
> sure what the thread was about, all I need to do is flip to the previous
> post in the thread and, presto, there it is. So why include any quote at
> all?


Because NOBODY IS FORCING ANYONE TO READ IT. BUT SOME PEOPLE MAY FIND
IT USEFUL. If you never find it useful, never read it, it's on the
bottom it is easy to ignorse. If you sometimes find it useful, then
read it if you need. You are certainly welcome to flip around in posts.
Some may just glance at the bottom and find out all the context they need.

But Jeremy, you feel that there could be no possible reason for me to
post the way that I do. I believe there is and have stated so.

Your response is, that there is no good reason to have quotes at the
bottom (I disagree), that 3 pane UI is no good (I disagree), that people
find top posting confusing (I disagree), and that it is horrible to go
through top posting on every single message (I disagree).

We have both stated our cases, we both disagree. It has been fun, but I
choose to go back to the regularly scheduled topics.

Cheers
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 5:27:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Jeremy Nixon wrote:
> fortknight <nobody@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>>And this of little actual relevance as the new google hides ALL quoted
>>text by default.
>
>
> Why should I care what google does, exactly? That's just one news reading
> interface, and not one that's any good, either.

Two things, first are you saying you prefer interleaved posting? As
this is the style that you are choosing. Secondly, the OP of this
particular point brought up the point that you need to bottom post so
that when found on google people would understand. So if you choose to
respond to this, it should be in referance as to why one would care, not
why you should care, since I was not directly responding to you.

But feel free to jump in, but please do not act as if I was responding
directly to you. Which if you noted at the bottom of my previous post,
the one that you are responding to here, that it was not you that I was
responding to. That is why I sometimes leave these bits at the bottom
to help folks out. This is probably way more confusing than where the
quote are.

>>Secondly, would be the thread I am having a current conversation in, and
>>again in this case, because I have a slight memory, I can probably pick
>>up context from your reply, or if need be I can look below and see if
>>that helps me understand the message.
>
>
> Except that it doesn't help anyone see which part of the message you're
> replying to, if it's a conversational style. It can take longer to figure
> that out than it takes to read the post itself.
>
> If that's not how you're posting, then the quoted text at the bottom just
> makes no sense. The root of your argument seems to be that you are too
> lazy to edit your posts, and proud of it. For example, in this post of
> yours I'm replying to, no context was needed. What you wrote stood on its
> own in the thread; no quotes were necessary to establish what you were
> replying to. So -- what was the point of the quoted text at the bottom?
> If I need the context because I'm reading that post next month and I'm not
> sure what the thread was about, all I need to do is flip to the previous
> post in the thread and, presto, there it is. So why include any quote at
> all?


Because NOBODY IS FORCING ANYONE TO READ IT. BUT SOME PEOPLE MAY FIND
IT USEFUL. If you never find it useful, never read it, it's on the
bottom it is easy to ignorse. If you sometimes find it useful, then
read it if you need. You are certainly welcome to flip around in posts.
Some may just glance at the bottom and find out all the context they need.

But Jeremy, you feel that there could be no possible reason for me to
post the way that I do. I believe there is and have stated so.

Your response is, that there is no good reason to have quotes at the
bottom (I disagree), that 3 pane UI is no good (I disagree), that people
find top posting confusing (I disagree), and that it is horrible to go
through top posting on every single message (I disagree).

We have both stated our cases, we both disagree. It has been fun, but I
choose to go back to the regularly scheduled topics.

Cheers
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 5:33:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

fortknight <nobody@home.com> wrote:

> As a matter of fact do you know how irritating it is to find original
> content, when forced to scan what I read just a second ago, every single
> frigging time?

Well, the original content is the stuff that isn't quoted. It kind of
sticks out.

> The only thing I have to offer to keep out of your killfile,

When did I say anything about a killfile?

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 9:47:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

fortknight <nobody@home.com> wrote:

> first are you saying you prefer interleaved posting? As this is the
> style that you are choosing.

You mean we've gotten this far in the conversation and you've not yet
figured out what I think about top-posting?

> But feel free to jump in, but please do not act as if I was responding
> directly to you. Which if you noted at the bottom of my previous post,
> the one that you are responding to here, that it was not you that I was
> responding to.

Okay, so in other words, I was supposed to first scroll down to figure
out the context, then scroll back up and read your post?

Why do you want to make people do that?

> Because NOBODY IS FORCING ANYONE TO READ IT. BUT SOME PEOPLE MAY FIND
> IT USEFUL. If you never find it useful, never read it, it's on the
> bottom it is easy to ignorse.

What is it, exactly, about being at the bottom that you think makes it
easy to ignore? Honestly, it would be easier to ignore at the top.
Moving on to the next post without scrolling to its bottom requires a
different action than the normal way to move on to the next post from
the end of the one you're on, yet another way it interferes with the
reading of a newsgroup, after it's already disrupted the flow of the
thread.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 9:47:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Jeremy Nixon wrote:
> fortknight <nobody@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>>first are you saying you prefer interleaved posting? As this is the
>>style that you are choosing.
>
>
> You mean we've gotten this far in the conversation and you've not yet
> figured out what I think about top-posting?

No I got the whole no top post thing... Really. What I don't get is
most people of either sort think interleaved posting is the worse sin.


>>But feel free to jump in, but please do not act as if I was responding
>>directly to you. Which if you noted at the bottom of my previous post,
>>the one that you are responding to here, that it was not you that I was
>>responding to.
>
>
> Okay, so in other words, I was supposed to first scroll down to figure
> out the context, then scroll back up and read your post?

Um no. I would expect you to go back to the previous message as if I
put nothing in there at all. (like you prefer to do). Or if you are
possibly confused, you could, at your leasure read further down to see
if you are getting it. Your choice,


> Why do you want to make people do that?
I don't. I like giving people the option... I don't like to make
people do anything. No extra parsing, no extra reading. But available
help if they nead it.

>Because NOBODY IS FORCING ANYONE TO READ IT. BUT SOME PEOPLE MAY FIND
>>IT USEFUL. If you never find it useful, never read it, it's on the
>>bottom it is easy to ignorse.
>
>
> What is it, exactly, about being at the bottom that you think makes it
> easy to ignore? Honestly, it would be easier to ignore at the top.
> Moving on to the next post without scrolling to its bottom requires a
> different action than the normal way to move on to the next post from
> the end of the one you're on, yet another way it interferes with the
> reading of a newsgroup, after it's already disrupted the flow of the
> thread.
>
What is it about being at the bottom that makes it so hard to ignore?
Gee, when I get to the part where I have read all the new stuff, and I
understand it, I STOP reading. And if I don't think I got it, I will
scan the stuff below. And if I really don't get it, I read it. But
really, I usually never read it, because, well, I have just read it
moments before, usually...

But I think I get something that you are saying here, We use our
readers in entirely different ways. I use mine using graphical
methods. I click on the messages I would like to read. I then use the
scroll bars to scroll. I understand this may be heathenistic. So be
it. While hitting the space bar to get to the next unread message suits
your style, it does not suit well with those of us who use our mouse and
would rather not use our keyboards while we read.
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 12:46:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:

>You can use those conventions, yes, though I personally have never accepted
>that *this* means bold -- it's used for emphasis, and boldface type is not;
>italic type is, so *this* is italics to me. And /this/ is just ugly and I
>would never use it.

You can always use BOLD and -italics-, as well as _underscored text_
where that is appropriate...

>I do sometimes try to read the message boards at dpreview.com, but they
>are so near to unusable that I only get the motivation to look at them
>very infrequently.

I find Google's new 'groups' interface impossible, but perhaps I
haven't given it enough try. It's too low on the information-density
for me.

--
Ken Tough
December 20, 2004 12:47:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

What about the minority who want to enter their text in between existing
lines ? (also posted at the bottom for the other 50%)

"Hunt" <noone@hunt.com> wrote in message
news:cpnmok12v9h@news2.newsguy.com...
> In article <7rydncGR3Ju6xyPcRVn-rA@comcast.com>, jfitz@bigfoot.com says...
>>
>>Now if everyone would learn to not include prior posts, selectively quote
>>posts, or top post, as considerate and knowledgeable posters have been
>>doing
>>since before Usenet, this group might be readable. The comments of bottom
>>posters are precisely where they belong. ;) 
>

What about the minority who want to enter their text in between existing
lines ? (also posted here for the minority)

> It is very interesting that 50% of the Usenet wants bottom-posts only, and
> the
> other 50% wants top-posts only. At least no one is in the minority there.
>
> Hunt
>

What about the minority who want to enter their text in between existing
lines ? (also posted at the top for the other 50%)
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 12:52:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:

>fortknight <nobody@home.com> wrote:
>> And this of little actual relevance as the new google hides ALL quoted
>> text by default.

>Why should I care what google does, exactly? That's just one news reading
>interface, and not one that's any good, either.

Plus, they have only recently started doing that, primarly because
people increasingly became sloppy and lazy in use of quoted text.
I find it has made the Google interface difficult and slow to use.

>If that's not how you're posting, then the quoted text at the bottom just
>makes no sense. The root of your argument seems to be that you are too
>lazy to edit your posts, and proud of it.

When pressed for time, if there are posts which are badly formatted
(no quoted material to which the reply relates, or screensful of
irrelevant quoted material, or hugely long lines, or no paragraph
breaks) it's easier just to ignore the post.

'Next Unread' <spacebar> is a very handy editing tool, too.

--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 1:05:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

fortknight <nobody@home.com> wrote:

>Interleaved posting mearly offends all.... But why would "irrelevant"
>following text be rude? Surely you don't have to read it... Unlike
>interleaved text or bottom posting where I am forced to scan it to find
>the message.

'merely' or 'nearly'? [sorry, big difference & I don't know
which you mean].

Anyway, a very handy tool is changing the colour of quoted text.
Most newsreader interfaces will allow this, and it makes skipping
the quoted text an automatic thing, if you don't need it. I do find
it difficult to read when quoted material is improperly included and
my colour system fails.

I think the lack of this extremely basic UI item has been the bane
of most posters in the last several years. It does rely on the
convention of preceding quoted text with a character like ">"
or ":". Microsoft's default settings in 'Outlook' were the
primary force in demolishing this exceedingly simple convention.
Hardly a surprise there; Micro$oft hates standards it doesn't own.

>And as to being lazy, in most communication systems, and actually most
>human systems are about approaching maximum laziness. Or making it
>easier on folk. But unfortunately what is easier for you to read or to
>write, is not what is easier for all to read or write.

It hasn't always been that way. There were conventions on writing
letters--for example business letters--because the conventional
format was a template which everyone was familiar with. It took
some effort in writing, but made the reading easier because you
immediately knew what was what, and where to find what. These days
people are used to shlepping around everywhere with minimal effort.
Sure, it's a matter of taste, and sadly us old-time-posters are
a dying breed.

Anyway, just as a matter of point, I had no idea you were responding
to me, since you omitted the standard attribution, and I very nearly
discarded your post.

--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 2:50:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

fortknight wrote:

> Wow...
>

Since I was forced to scroll down to see what you were blathering about, I saw
what it was, and decided what you wrote wasn't worth reading. That's top
posting for you.

Bye.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 2:54:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Charles wrote:

>
> You can't post *bold* and /italics/ ?

People should be able to make their point clearly with little visual emphasis
and the occasional use of _underline_, *bold* and /italics/. (actually ALL CAPS
seems to be the preferred bold style).

;-) <- but the winky/smiley is necessary when we're in a cynical mood.

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
!