Hi-Def DirecTivo: $400 Toshiba vs. $900 Hughes?

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

I was checking prices today for a hi-def DirecTivo, and I saw this $400
one from Toshiba at:

http://store.yahoo.com/hometheaterplus/toshiba-dst3100.html

But most of them seem to be around $900, like this one from Hughes:

http://www.wholesaleconnection.com/productDetails.aspx?product=3341&refer
=1

Are there drawbacks to the Toshiba? Thanks in advance to all for any
info.


-Vik
36 answers Last reply
More about def directivo 400 toshiba 900 hughes
  1. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    Vik Rubenfeld wrote:
    > I was checking prices today for a hi-def DirecTivo, and I saw this $400
    > one from Toshiba

    It is not a DirecTiVo.

    > Are there drawbacks to the Toshiba? Thanks in advance to all for any
    > info.

    Recording capability:
    HR10-250 = up to 30 hours HDTV, up to 200 hours standard def.
    Toshiba = 0 hours. DirecTV and ATSC receiver; no hard disk.

    -Joe
  2. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    * Vik Rubenfeld wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
    > I was checking prices today for a hi-def DirecTivo, and I saw this $400
    > one from Toshiba at:

    > http://store.yahoo.com/hometheaterplus/toshiba-dst3100.html

    This one is NOT a DVR and has no recording functionality.

    --
    David
  3. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    "Vik Rubenfeld" <vikr@mindspring.com.invalid> wrote in message
    news:vikr-6F2E4C.16554003042005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
    >I was checking prices today for a hi-def DirecTivo, and I saw this $400
    > one from Toshiba at:
    >
    > http://store.yahoo.com/hometheaterplus/toshiba-dst3100.html
    >
    > But most of them seem to be around $900, like this one from Hughes:
    >
    > http://www.wholesaleconnection.com/productDetails.aspx?product=3341&refer
    > =1
    >
    > Are there drawbacks to the Toshiba? Thanks in advance to all for any
    > info.

    Well, excuse me if I am missing something in the description, but that
    Toshiba isn't a TiVo. In fact, it doesn't appear to be any kind of DVR.
  4. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 23:55:45 GMT, Vik Rubenfeld
    <vikr@mindspring.com.invalid> wrote:

    >I was checking prices today for a hi-def DirecTivo, and I saw this $400
    >one from Toshiba at:
    >
    >http://store.yahoo.com/hometheaterplus/toshiba-dst3100.html
    >
    >But most of them seem to be around $900, like this one from Hughes:
    >
    >http://www.wholesaleconnection.com/productDetails.aspx?product=3341&refer
    >=1
    >
    >Are there drawbacks to the Toshiba? Thanks in advance to all for any
    >info.
    >
    >
    >-Vik

    Get your cable co's dvr. It's HD + Free.

    Sean
  5. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    The biggest drawback is that the Toshiba has a 0 hour record time - it is
    not a DVR.

    Cable DVR's are not "free", the cable service will cost you at about $30 or
    $40 a month more for the same service.
    "Sean" <none> wrote in message
    news:h7f551hfe44bdsilgiifnsebmg26dbdmme@4ax.com...
    > On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 23:55:45 GMT, Vik Rubenfeld
    > <vikr@mindspring.com.invalid> wrote:
    >
    >>I was checking prices today for a hi-def DirecTivo, and I saw this $400
    >>one from Toshiba at:
    >>
    >>http://store.yahoo.com/hometheaterplus/toshiba-dst3100.html
    >>
    >>But most of them seem to be around $900, like this one from Hughes:
    >>
    >>http://www.wholesaleconnection.com/productDetails.aspx?product=3341&refer
    >>=1
    >>
    >>Are there drawbacks to the Toshiba? Thanks in advance to all for any
    >>info.
    >>
    >>
    >>-Vik
    >
    > Get your cable co's dvr. It's HD + Free.
    >
    > Sean
    >
  6. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 10:25:40 -0700, "Fred Bloggs" <SPAM@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >The biggest drawback is that the Toshiba has a 0 hour record time - it is
    >not a DVR.
    >
    >Cable DVR's are not "free", the cable service will cost you at about $30 or
    >$40 a month more for the same service.
    >"Sean" <none> wrote in message
    >news:h7f551hfe44bdsilgiifnsebmg26dbdmme@4ax.com...
    >> On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 23:55:45 GMT, Vik Rubenfeld
    >> <vikr@mindspring.com.invalid> wrote:
    >>
    >>>I was checking prices today for a hi-def DirecTivo, and I saw this $400
    >>>one from Toshiba at:
    >>>
    >>>http://store.yahoo.com/hometheaterplus/toshiba-dst3100.html
    >>>
    >>>But most of them seem to be around $900, like this one from Hughes:
    >>>
    >>>http://www.wholesaleconnection.com/productDetails.aspx?product=3341&refer
    >>>=1
    >>>
    >>>Are there drawbacks to the Toshiba? Thanks in advance to all for any
    >>>info.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>-Vik
    >>
    >> Get your cable co's dvr. It's HD + Free.
    >>
    >> Sean
    >>
    >


    The biggest drawback of this NG is top posting twits like you.

    Sean
  7. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    * Sean Wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:

    > The biggest drawback of this NG is top posting twits like you.

    And non snipping twits like you. Well thats only ONE of your many flaws
    but this is usenet and I dont have time to write a book this month.

    --
    David
  8. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 20:16:43 GMT, SINNER
    <arcade.master@googlemail.net> wrote:

    >* Sean Wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
    >
    >> The biggest drawback of this NG is top posting twits like you.
    >

    Thanks for agreeing with me David.

    Sean
  9. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    Sean <none> wrote:
    >
    > The biggest drawback of this NG is top posting twits like you.
    >
    > Sean

    Of all the problems in the world, 'Top posting' gets your
    panties in a wad?! Get a life. Go outside and breath in some
    fresh air why don't you?

    ~~Phil~~

    --
    -------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
    Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
  10. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    When "bottom posting twits" quote more than one screenfull
    I usually skip to the next post without paging down to read
    the new remarks. Sean is in a rules list to be ignored,
    so I don't see his posts unless someone quotes one.

    "PHIL" <Invalid_Email@dot.com> wrote in message news:20050406090656.661$pX@newsreader.com...
    > Sean <none> wrote:
    > >
    > > The biggest drawback of this NG is top posting twits like you.
    > >
    > > Sean
    >
    > Of all the problems in the world, 'Top posting' gets your
    > panties in a wad?! Get a life. Go outside and breath in some
    > fresh air why don't you?
    >
    > ~~Phil~~
    >
    > --
    > -------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
    > Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
  11. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    "Sean" <none> wrote in message
    news:te4851tpdj7ofl034h37f61sltgi991f9q@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 20:16:43 GMT, SINNER
    > <arcade.master@googlemail.net> wrote:
    >
    >>* Sean Wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
    >>
    >>> The biggest drawback of this NG is top posting twits like you.
    >>
    >
    > Thanks for agreeing with me David.
    >
    > Sean

    If one uses Outlook Express as a newsreader--which is usually the case--the
    cursor appears at the top, ready for top posting. They could just as easily
    have placed it at the bottom. Therefore, I'm going to make the perhaps
    unwarranted assumption that OE prefers, or at least expects, top posting.

    Norm Strong
  12. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    Jack Ak wrote:
    > So one expects strangers in newsgroups to posit correct posting
    style?

    There is a well understood acceptable posting style for USENET. You
    just appear not to know what it is.

    Go to goole and search for 'correct USENET posting style' and you'll
    see that strangers and non-strangers alike agree that top-posting is
    not correct posting style.

    > You can post addenda where you like and the rest of us will do the
    same.

    We can't easily prevent you - is that what you're going for? Not a
    very friendly attitude.

    > If you like it "doggie style" that doesn't imply the rest of us
    should.

    It doesn't matter if you like it or not, to be part of a community, you
    should at least attempt to fit into that community and a good start
    with that fitting in would be to learn the practices and customs
    expected of a member. Top-posting isn't one of them (there are others
    though so you should do some research on this before posting again).

    If you don't like the practices and customs of a given community,
    you're welcome to not participate but don't blame us when you violate
    these understood rules and people mention it to you.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    * Jack Ak Wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:

    > So one expects strangers in newsgroups to posit correct posting
    > style?

    Yes, part of belonging to the usenet community requires lurking and
    learning the culture of the news group BEFORE posting.

    > You can post addenda where you like and the rest of us will
    > do the same.
    >
    > If you like it "doggie style" that doesn't imply the rest of us
    > should.

    Its not a matter if Like. I dont LIKE to Drive 55 but I do. Granted,
    posting style is not a law but there are accepted/expected conventions,
    not following them has its own consequences.

    --
    David
  14. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    On 7 Apr 2005 13:18:24 -0700, in2sheep@yahoo.com wrote:

    >
    >Jack Ak wrote:
    >> So one expects strangers in newsgroups to posit correct posting
    >style?
    >
    >There is a well understood acceptable posting style for USENET. You
    >just appear not to know what it is.
    >
    >Go to goole and search for 'correct USENET posting style' and you'll
    >see that strangers and non-strangers alike agree that top-posting is
    >not correct posting style.
    >
    >> You can post addenda where you like and the rest of us will do the
    >same.
    >
    >We can't easily prevent you - is that what you're going for? Not a
    >very friendly attitude.
    >
    >> If you like it "doggie style" that doesn't imply the rest of us
    >should.
    >
    >It doesn't matter if you like it or not, to be part of a community, you
    >should at least attempt to fit into that community and a good start
    >with that fitting in would be to learn the practices and customs
    >expected of a member. Top-posting isn't one of them (there are others
    >though so you should do some research on this before posting again).
    >
    >If you don't like the practices and customs of a given community,
    >you're welcome to not participate but don't blame us when you violate
    >these understood rules and people mention it to you.

    Me too.

    Sean
  15. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    Couldn't have said it better. The people who get uptight about this minor
    issue are really silly (I'm trying to keep it clean).

    --

    Jeff Stevens
    Email address deliberately false to avoid spam
    jeff@stevens.com


    "PHIL" <Invalid_Email@dot.com> wrote in message
    news:20050406090656.661$pX@newsreader.com...
    > Sean <none> wrote:
    >>
    >> The biggest drawback of this NG is top posting twits like you.
    >>
    >> Sean
    >
    > Of all the problems in the world, 'Top posting' gets your
    > panties in a wad?! Get a life. Go outside and breath in some
    > fresh air why don't you?
    >
    > ~~Phil~~
    >
    > --
    > -------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
    > Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
  16. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    >>>There are no conventional penalties for flouting the conventions
    >>>because they *aren't* laws.
    >>
    >
    > So that means they should be ignored? Like not swimming after you eat
    > or not standing under a tree in a lightning storm?

    Heh, that one was mine, but you took it out of context. I was trying to
    point that just because something *isn't* a law doesn't mean it doesn't
    have value or shouldn't be followed. If everyone benefits, it just
    makes good sense, just like my examples from above, i.e. talking during
    a movie or walking on the right side of a crowded hallway. I was
    basically refuting his "Usenet cops" tantrum.

    I think we're on the same page ;-).

    Randy S.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    "Randy S." <rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
    news:d3hik0$l78$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu...
    > >>>There are no conventional penalties for flouting the conventions
    > >>>because they *aren't* laws.
    > >>
    > >
    > > So that means they should be ignored? Like not swimming after you eat
    > > or not standing under a tree in a lightning storm?
    >
    > Heh, that one was mine, but you took it out of context. I was trying to
    > point that just because something *isn't* a law doesn't mean it doesn't
    > have value or shouldn't be followed. If everyone benefits, it just
    > makes good sense, just like my examples from above, i.e. talking during
    > a movie or walking on the right side of a crowded hallway. I was
    > basically refuting his "Usenet cops" tantrum.

    LOL. He took a lot of stuff out of context.


    >
    > I think we're on the same page ;-).
    >
    > Randy S.
  18. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    > My last thoughts on this subject:
    >
    > 1. Usenet is not the real world. Analogies with the real world are not
    > valid.

    Bullshit. The whole point of analogies is to compare two disparate
    things to point out they're similarities. The point is that they *are*
    disparate. Social skills apply in both Usenet and the real world, and
    people still use social conventions to get along. We have conventions
    that LOL stands for something as does AFAIK. Are you going to now come
    out and say they stand for different things?

    > 2. Many people top post because in many cases it is the logical way to post.

    Look, there are times that top posting isn't a big deal. A line of text
    at the top of a short post is probably fine. Of course a bottom post in
    that situation would be fine as well. If the whole post fits on one
    screen it's not too hard to figure out the flow. It's when you have
    multiple screens and long threads that bottom posting becomes much more
    convenient. There are times that interleaving (like this here) is
    better. But most of the time bottom posting just works better for everyone.

    > 3. Many people will post how they want and a few will bitch about it. Others
    > will either read the posts or not.

    Many people top post because they're new to Usenet and e-mail seems to
    default to top posting and that's what they're used to. But e-mail is
    different and top posting works better there (since generally you've
    read all the quoted text previously). But try reading someone *elses*
    long email message with multiple levels of top-posted quoted text, it's
    a real pain! Most new usenet users listen to the advice, understand the
    logic behind it, appreciate it, and play nicely with others.

    > 4. Usenet is full of anal-retentive people who once read something and
    > forever take it to be true when in reality everything changes. The language
    > changes, the internet changes, cars change, morals change, everything
    > changes. Deal with it.

    Yes, things change. Usually to changes in the environment. But the
    Usenet environment hasn't really changed that much (there's been a few,
    like cancels basically being ignored now). Can you point out a listing
    of these "changed" rules? Because we can fairly easily point out sites
    with a listing of Usenet etiquette. Like here:
    http://www.html-faq.com/etiquette/

    Note the first link. I swear to god this was the first google hit for
    Usenet Etiquette.

    > 5. If usenet cops feel enabled to call people out when they don't approve of
    > the posting style, then they should expect the same treatment from people
    > that are less regimented.

    Huh? Nobody's calling anybody out, we're pointing out how make your
    posts more readable for everyone (see link above).

    > 6. You say what you want about Godwin's law, but the fact remains you usenet
    > cops would have made fine Nazis.

    Now you're just being lazy and stupid. If you're going to attempt to
    flame, at least be more creative. It also makes no sense. The Nazi's
    aren't known as evil because they enforced rules that people didn't
    like, they're known that way because they tortured and killed people.
    As someone with relatives who survived (and some who didn't) Auschwitz,
    I find your casual use of the term "Nazi" more than a little offensive.
    I know what a Nazi is (having heard 1st hand accounts), and we're no
    Nazis.

    > 7. It must be really tough going though life like you people do. You can't
    > control the physical world so you try like hell to control the usenet world.

    Look, if you want to throw a tantrum, go ahead. But you could try to
    make some sense? I like people I have to deal with to at least attempt
    to act polite. It's not that big of a request. It has nothing to do
    with "control".

    > 8. I would bet that most of you usenet cops were only children. I would
    > further bet that if I looked in your kitchen cabinets all the glasses would
    > be lined up in a perfect grid.

    Heh, I'm lucky if I get them out of the sink at night. And yes, at one
    point 20 years and more ago I was a child, though I don't know if I'd
    characterize it as "only". But I think your assertion is backwards.
    Most people who appreciate consideration of others and politeness are
    *older* not younger.

    Honestly? This whole posting discussion isn't that big a deal to me, I
    typically just ignore posts that are constructed poorly. But you made
    this into an academic exercise. You have yet to explain why people
    *shouldn't* bottom post whilst we have explained or linked to places
    that explain why it's significantly better not to top-post (amongst
    other things).

    Randy S.
  19. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    * Randy S. wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
    >>>>There are no conventional penalties for flouting the conventions
    >>>>because they *aren't* laws.


    >> So that means they should be ignored? Like not swimming after you eat
    >> or not standing under a tree in a lightning storm?

    > Heh, that one was mine, but you took it out of context.

    Oops :)

    > I was trying to
    > point that just because something *isn't* a law doesn't mean it doesn't
    > have value or shouldn't be followed. If everyone benefits, it just
    > makes good sense, just like my examples from above, i.e. talking during
    > a movie or walking on the right side of a crowded hallway. I was
    > basically refuting his "Usenet cops" tantrum.

    > I think we're on the same page ;-).

    I'd agree :)

    --
    David
    "You're just the sort of person I imagined marrying, when I was little...
    except, y'know, not green... and without all the patches of fungus."
    -- Swamp Thing
  20. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    * RG wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:

    > "SINNER" <arcade.master@googlemail.net> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9636AC933615Louiscypherhellorg@140.99.99.130...
    >> * RG Wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:

    >> > FYI, so you won't get confused, I am bottom posting responses to
    >> > several of your comments.


    >> [please note the poorly wrapped text from your broken newsreader]

    > Yeah but it's the newsreader I have and it's really all I want to have.

    So FIX it. Do you drive your car for thousands of miles when the muffler
    has a hole without fixing it?

    > This
    > also further proves my point, you guys just can't ignore anything can you?

    Cant ignore it because it is not ignorable, it screws with the flow of
    the conversation which is the primary purpose of Usenet to begin with.
    If the quote levels aren't valid how is one to know who said what?

    [...]

    >> > I grasp exactly what is
    >> > happening here. I see anal-retentive people trying to force their
    >> > thoughts on other people.

    >> You mean like the state legistlature telling you can only drive 55 on
    >> the highway? If you break that law do you always get a ticket? No,
    >> does it piss other moterists off? sometimes. does it result in road
    >> rage? yes. So you have road rage because YOU did something wrong or
    >> the someone you dont even know did and was called on it?

    > Seems to me you usenet cops are the ones suffering from rage.

    You were the one who posted about being disgusted. Me, I'm fine, thanks
    for asking.

    >>Usenet is
    >> self policing, its is still around BECAUSE of it not in spite of it.
    >> deal with, learn to use a killfile or go read a web forum.

    > I think it is still around in spite of you usenet cops, not because of you.

    You'd be wrong.

    > I think you need to take your own advice also "deal with, learn to use a
    > killfile or go read a web forum"

    No thanks. I can conform, in fact I have. It wasn't difficult, really.

    >> > You can say what you want but the fact
    >> > remains that you or your fellow usenet cops got involved in a
    >> > thread for no other reason than to tell someone they weren't
    >> > posting correctly.

    >> So?

    > My point exactly.

    There was no point, hence the 'So?'

    >> >> Nobody's arguing about "rules" or laws, they're discussing
    >> >> "polite" conventions. We deal with these every day in everyday
    >> >> activities, so it's not a new thing.

    >> > Perhaps you need to read my response again, I never used the terms
    >> > rules or laws.
    >> > Where I come from it is considered very rude and low class to
    >> > correct someone in a public situation especially when it involves
    >> > harmless behavior. I guess your idea of "polite" conventions
    >> > includes everyone doing things the way you prefer.


    >> Where I come from its considered rude to go into someone elses haouse
    >> and leave your shoed on if they ask you to take them off.

    > But usenet isn't your house, it is a public building.

    So is it OK to act a fool in a public place or are there accepted
    conventions for entering for instance, the court house?

    [...]
    >> > It isn't equivalent to any of those physical activities. I can't
    >> > ignore you talking in a theater or walking on the wrong side but
    >> > usenet isn't a physical world and don't compare it to the physical
    >> > world.

    >> I cant IGNORE you until I see the behavior, same in the physical
    >> world.

    > Sure you can, with a killfile. You don't have to look in every post.

    So because you cant follow a few simple 'suggestions' I need to become
    clairvoyant now? Now that I have seen the behavior, yes I can killfile
    you but why bother.

    [...]

    >> > I think it is easier for everyone to post however they want in
    >> > usenet

    >> Anarchy rules, yeah that works...

    > That kinda sums up a usenet cop's personality doesn't it? Top posting is
    > real anarchy.......and anything else that isn't done exactly how you think
    > it should be

    Dude, seriously, get a grip. Were you allowed out past 7 on school
    nights? Rules really aren't that bad. Your post denouncing the standards
    is just as uninviting as net copping.

    >> > while you think it is better for everyone to post the way
    >> > you want.

    >> That where you are missing the point, he wants everyone to post THE
    >> SAME and LOGICALLY not HIS way, the established way.

    > Drivel, just absolute drivel.

    Funny how that drivel has been and continues to be the standard.

    >> So that means they should be ignored? Like not swimming after you eat
    >> or not standing under a tree in a lightning storm?

    > That was not a part of my post.

    Yes, I know. Its that damn client of yours making one second guess the
    quote levels.

    >> I'm sure with posts like this one you get ignored quite a bit. Whose
    >> loss is that exactly?

    > Killfile me. I think I can handle having you ignore me.

    Too much effort on someone I could care less about, killfiles are for
    trolls and spam.

    >> > Top posting causes you no real physical problems.

    >> Unless you consider trying to read something that is out of order a
    >> physical problem.

    > I don't, do you?

    Yes. Reading is a physical act and posting out of order makes this act
    more difficult.

    >> > If you just
    >> > can't stand top posting then don't read them. It's as simply as
    >> > that.

    >> Got to open it to see it top posted.

    > I think it is safe to say that some of my posts will be top posted. Kilfile
    > me, save yourself some trouble.

    It's no trouble, really

    > My last thoughts on this subject:

    > 1. Usenet is not the real world. Analogies with the real world are not
    > valid.

    Complete and utter nonsense, its quotes like that, that create keyboard
    jockeys.

    > 2. Many people top post because in many cases it is the logical way to post.

    If you are playing Jeopardy maybe.

    > 3. Many people will post how they want and a few will bitch about it. Others
    > will either read the posts or not.

    And still others will do the right thing and conform.

    > 4. Usenet is full of anal-retentive people who once read something and
    > forever take it to be true when in reality everything changes. The language
    > changes, the internet changes, cars change, morals change, everything
    > changes. Deal with it.

    Yet reading English hasn't changed in at least my 37 years. I still read
    from top to bottom and left to right.

    > 5. If usenet cops feel enabled to call people out when they don't approve of
    > the posting style, then they should expect the same treatment from people
    > that are less regimented.

    And?

    > 6. You say what you want about Godwin's law, but the fact remains you usenet
    > cops would have made fine Nazis.

    So anyone that follows rules is a NA*I? We all know when you drop the
    keyboard you don't really act like that.

    > 7. It must be really tough going though life like you people do. You can't
    > control the physical world so you try like hell to control the usenet world.

    I have total control over everything effecting my life. You should read
    Seven Habits ...

    > 8. I would bet that most of you usenet cops were only children. I would
    > further bet that if I looked in your kitchen cabinets all the glasses would
    > be lined up in a perfect grid.

    Neither of those are true of me.

    > My advice to you would be to killfile me. I will probably killfile you.

    Se la vie...
    --
    David
    We're here to give you a computer, not a religion.
    - attributed to Bob Pariseau, at the introduction of the Amiga
  21. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    RG wrote:

    > 2. Many people top post because in many cases it is the logical way to post.

    That may be true in some cases, but there are far too many instances
    of top posting caused by sheer laziness. Quoting an entire 100-line
    article to add a few lines at the top is being thoughtless, not being
    logical.
    -Joe
  22. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    Amen.

    "Jeff" <jeff@falsepart.com> wrote in message
    news:JAY6e.62675$NC6.59114@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
    > Couldn't have said it better. The people who get uptight about this minor
    > issue are really silly (I'm trying to keep it clean).
    >
    > --
    >
    > Jeff Stevens
    > Email address deliberately false to avoid spam
    > jeff@stevens.com
    >
    >
    > "PHIL" <Invalid_Email@dot.com> wrote in message
    > news:20050406090656.661$pX@newsreader.com...
    > > Sean <none> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> The biggest drawback of this NG is top posting twits like you.
    > >>
    > >> Sean
    > >
    > > Of all the problems in the world, 'Top posting' gets your
    > > panties in a wad?! Get a life. Go outside and breath in some
    > > fresh air why don't you?
    > >
    > > ~~Phil~~
    > >
    > > --
    > > -------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
    > > Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
    >
    >
  23. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    Is it any better to quote an entire 100 line article to add a few lines to
    the bottom?


    "Joe Smith" <joe@inwap.com> wrote in message
    news:NqCdnel7F_KVR8HfRVn-1g@comcast.com...
    > RG wrote:
    >
    > > 2. Many people top post because in many cases it is the logical way to
    post.
    >
    > That may be true in some cases, but there are far too many instances
    > of top posting caused by sheer laziness. Quoting an entire 100-line
    > article to add a few lines at the top is being thoughtless, not being
    > logical.
    > -Joe
  24. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    >>>2. Many people top post because in many cases it is the logical way to
    >
    > post.
    >
    >>That may be true in some cases, but there are far too many instances
    >>of top posting caused by sheer laziness. Quoting an entire 100-line
    >>article to add a few lines at the top is being thoughtless, not being
    >>logical.
    >>-Joe
    >
    RG wrote:
    > Is it any better to quote an entire 100 line article to add a few
    lines to
    > the bottom?
    >
    >

    No, but that's a different courtesy entirely, snipping out unneeded
    content. If you agree that it's courteous to not quote unnecessarily,
    why can't you agree that it's courteous to bottom-post rather than top
    post? What makes one courtesy valid, and the other one invalid? Who
    draws the line, and why?

    Randy S.
  25. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:37:51 -0400, "Randy S."
    <rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com> wrote:

    >>>>There are no conventional penalties for flouting the conventions
    >>>>because they *aren't* laws.
    >>>
    >>
    >> So that means they should be ignored? Like not swimming after you eat
    >> or not standing under a tree in a lightning storm?
    >

    That no swimmimg after you eat thing is just an old
    "siginficant-other" tale.

    Sean
  26. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:02:31 -0500, "RG" <No@nfw.com> wrote:

    >Is it any better to quote an entire 100 line article to add a few lines to
    >the bottom?
    >
    >
    >"Joe Smith" <joe@inwap.com> wrote in message
    >news:NqCdnel7F_KVR8HfRVn-1g@comcast.com...
    >> RG wrote:
    >>
    >> > 2. Many people top post because in many cases it is the logical way to
    >post.
    >>
    >> That may be true in some cases, but there are far too many instances
    >> of top posting caused by sheer laziness. Quoting an entire 100-line
    >> article to add a few lines at the top is being thoughtless, not being
    >> logical.
    >> -Joe
    >

    Yes.

    Sean
  27. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    In spite of my better judgement, one more time.....


    "Randy S." <rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
    news:d3hodp$12h4$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu...
    > > My last thoughts on this subject:
    > >
    > > 1. Usenet is not the real world. Analogies with the real world are not
    > > valid.
    >
    > Bullshit. The whole point of analogies is to compare two disparate
    > things to point out they're similarities. The point is that they *are*
    > disparate. Social skills apply in both Usenet and the real world, and
    > people still use social conventions to get along. We have conventions
    > that LOL stands for something as does AFAIK. Are you going to now come
    > out and say they stand for different things?

    Grace in social skills in real life avoids correcting someone for things
    that are harmless and for things that might not be done the way you prefer.
    An example, you prefer to button your shirt such that the collar remains
    open by one button. You prefer this because the real world convention is
    that it looks more refined and is more socially acceptable (and I would
    agree). You go to a party and casually observe someone who has their top
    three buttons undone, the shirt is spread out showing lots of ugly male
    chest. This is certainly against normally accepted social conventions but do
    you think it's okay to walk up to him and tell him he shouldn't dress that
    way? That he appears low class and stupid? I submit that doing that could
    not only be somewhat dangerous but would be just as objectionable as the
    shirt. An accepted social convention is that is rude and unacceptable
    behavior is to be avoided. Many people feel that being corrected by a
    stranger over what is esentially a personal preference is rude behavior.
    Social skills is a two-edged sword.

    >
    > > 2. Many people top post because in many cases it is the logical way to
    post.
    >
    > Look, there are times that top posting isn't a big deal. A line of text
    > at the top of a short post is probably fine. Of course a bottom post in
    > that situation would be fine as well. If the whole post fits on one
    > screen it's not too hard to figure out the flow. It's when you have
    > multiple screens and long threads that bottom posting becomes much more
    > convenient. There are times that interleaving (like this here) is
    > better. But most of the time bottom posting just works better for
    everyone.

    I'm impressed that you said "there are times that top posting isn't a big
    deal".
    Actually if a reply is more than just a few lines to a long post, I prefer
    interleaving because that IS the most understandable.

    ***snipped text***


    > > 5. If usenet cops feel enabled to call people out when they don't
    approve of
    > > the posting style, then they should expect the same treatment from
    people
    > > that are less regimented.
    >
    > Huh? Nobody's calling anybody out, we're pointing out how make your
    > posts more readable for everyone (see link above).

    I believe what got all this started was "The biggest drawback of this NG is
    top posting twits like you."
    If that isn't calling someone out then what is?? Is use of the term "twit"
    socially acceptable to you?

    >
    > > 6. You say what you want about Godwin's law, but the fact remains you
    usenet
    > > cops would have made fine Nazis.
    >
    > Now you're just being lazy and stupid. If you're going to attempt to
    > flame, at least be more creative. It also makes no sense. The Nazi's
    > aren't known as evil because they enforced rules that people didn't
    > like, they're known that way because they tortured and killed people.
    > As someone with relatives who survived (and some who didn't) Auschwitz,
    > I find your casual use of the term "Nazi" more than a little offensive.
    > I know what a Nazi is (having heard 1st hand accounts), and we're no
    > Nazis.

    So you can call me lazy and stupid and I can't say you would have made a
    good Nazi? That sure makes sense.

    Nazis were very good at blindly following orders, that is the characteristic
    I was referencing.. I certainly don't think usenet cops are evil or torture
    and kill people (at least most of them). Did you really not understand what
    I meant? Would you have preferred I called you a lemming?

    >
    > > 7. It must be really tough going though life like you people do. You
    can't
    > > control the physical world so you try like hell to control the usenet
    world.
    >
    > Look, if you want to throw a tantrum, go ahead. But you could try to
    > make some sense? I like people I have to deal with to at least attempt
    > to act polite. It's not that big of a request. It has nothing to do
    > with "control".

    If you like people to respond to you in a polite manner, then treat them the
    same way you want to be treated. The old Golden Rule works pretty well.

    >
    > > 8. I would bet that most of you usenet cops were only children. I would
    > > further bet that if I looked in your kitchen cabinets all the glasses
    would
    > > be lined up in a perfect grid.
    >
    > Heh, I'm lucky if I get them out of the sink at night. And yes, at one
    > point 20 years and more ago I was a child, though I don't know if I'd
    > characterize it as "only".

    An only child is one that doesn't have any brothers or sisters. Perhaps if I
    had said "I would bet that most of you usenet cops were an only child" it
    would have been more clear to you. An only child is one that grows up
    without the social interactions of siblings and therefore often lacks an
    understanding of how to relate to their peers. A lack of social grace.

    But I think your assertion is backwards.
    > Most people who appreciate consideration of others and politeness are
    > *older* not younger.
    >
    > Honestly? This whole posting discussion isn't that big a deal to me, I
    > typically just ignore posts that are constructed poorly. But you made
    > this into an academic exercise. You have yet to explain why people
    > *shouldn't* bottom post whilst we have explained or linked to places
    > that explain why it's significantly better not to top-post (amongst
    > other things).

    You have missed the ENTIRE point, I'm not trying to tell you how to post, I
    don't care how you post. My point is that it isn't better to top, bottom or
    interlace post (do whatever best fits the situation), my point is that it is
    rude and insulting behavior to constantly admonish people for not posting in
    a manner that you and some others prefer.

    You post however you want and I will not bitch about it or tell you to do it
    another way. Do it however you want. I'm not going to presume to tell you
    how it should be done and I don't expect you to tell me. If I don't read
    your post or vice versa it isn't going to reduce the value of the usenet
    experience to either one of us.


    >
    > Randy S.
  28. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    When I open a post and there's no original text at the top, I just
    figure someone accidentally hit the SEND button. What exactly does
    bottom-posting look like?

    Derek


    In article <kbb7e.11336$L64.3689@okepread07>, RG <No@nfw.com> wrote:

    > In spite of my better judgement, one more time.....
    >
    >
    > "Randy S." <rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:d3hodp$12h4$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu...
    > > > My last thoughts on this subject:
    > > >
    > > > 1. Usenet is not the real world. Analogies with the real world are not
    > > > valid.
    > >
    > > Bullshit. The whole point of analogies is to compare two disparate
    > > things to point out they're similarities. The point is that they *are*
    > > disparate. Social skills apply in both Usenet and the real world, and
    > > people still use social conventions to get along. We have conventions
    > > that LOL stands for something as does AFAIK. Are you going to now come
    > > out and say they stand for different things?
    >
    > Grace in social skills in real life avoids correcting someone for things
    > that are harmless and for things that might not be done the way you prefer.
    > An example, you prefer to button your shirt such that the collar remains
    > open by one button. You prefer this because the real world convention is
    > that it looks more refined and is more socially acceptable (and I would
    > agree). You go to a party and casually observe someone who has their top
    > three buttons undone, the shirt is spread out showing lots of ugly male
    > chest. This is certainly against normally accepted social conventions but do
    > you think it's okay to walk up to him and tell him he shouldn't dress that
    > way? That he appears low class and stupid? I submit that doing that could
    > not only be somewhat dangerous but would be just as objectionable as the
    > shirt. An accepted social convention is that is rude and unacceptable
    > behavior is to be avoided. Many people feel that being corrected by a
    > stranger over what is esentially a personal preference is rude behavior.
    > Social skills is a two-edged sword.
    >
    > >
    > > > 2. Many people top post because in many cases it is the logical way to
    > post.
    > >
    > > Look, there are times that top posting isn't a big deal. A line of text
    > > at the top of a short post is probably fine. Of course a bottom post in
    > > that situation would be fine as well. If the whole post fits on one
    > > screen it's not too hard to figure out the flow. It's when you have
    > > multiple screens and long threads that bottom posting becomes much more
    > > convenient. There are times that interleaving (like this here) is
    > > better. But most of the time bottom posting just works better for
    > everyone.
    >
    > I'm impressed that you said "there are times that top posting isn't a big
    > deal".
    > Actually if a reply is more than just a few lines to a long post, I prefer
    > interleaving because that IS the most understandable.
    >
    > ***snipped text***
    >
    >
    > > > 5. If usenet cops feel enabled to call people out when they don't
    > approve of
    > > > the posting style, then they should expect the same treatment from
    > people
    > > > that are less regimented.
    > >
    > > Huh? Nobody's calling anybody out, we're pointing out how make your
    > > posts more readable for everyone (see link above).
    >
    > I believe what got all this started was "The biggest drawback of this NG is
    > top posting twits like you."
    > If that isn't calling someone out then what is?? Is use of the term "twit"
    > socially acceptable to you?
    >
    > >
    > > > 6. You say what you want about Godwin's law, but the fact remains you
    > usenet
    > > > cops would have made fine Nazis.
    > >
    > > Now you're just being lazy and stupid. If you're going to attempt to
    > > flame, at least be more creative. It also makes no sense. The Nazi's
    > > aren't known as evil because they enforced rules that people didn't
    > > like, they're known that way because they tortured and killed people.
    > > As someone with relatives who survived (and some who didn't) Auschwitz,
    > > I find your casual use of the term "Nazi" more than a little offensive.
    > > I know what a Nazi is (having heard 1st hand accounts), and we're no
    > > Nazis.
    >
    > So you can call me lazy and stupid and I can't say you would have made a
    > good Nazi? That sure makes sense.
    >
    > Nazis were very good at blindly following orders, that is the characteristic
    > I was referencing.. I certainly don't think usenet cops are evil or torture
    > and kill people (at least most of them). Did you really not understand what
    > I meant? Would you have preferred I called you a lemming?
    >
    > >
    > > > 7. It must be really tough going though life like you people do. You
    > can't
    > > > control the physical world so you try like hell to control the usenet
    > world.
    > >
    > > Look, if you want to throw a tantrum, go ahead. But you could try to
    > > make some sense? I like people I have to deal with to at least attempt
    > > to act polite. It's not that big of a request. It has nothing to do
    > > with "control".
    >
    > If you like people to respond to you in a polite manner, then treat them the
    > same way you want to be treated. The old Golden Rule works pretty well.
    >
    > >
    > > > 8. I would bet that most of you usenet cops were only children. I would
    > > > further bet that if I looked in your kitchen cabinets all the glasses
    > would
    > > > be lined up in a perfect grid.
    > >
    > > Heh, I'm lucky if I get them out of the sink at night. And yes, at one
    > > point 20 years and more ago I was a child, though I don't know if I'd
    > > characterize it as "only".
    >
    > An only child is one that doesn't have any brothers or sisters. Perhaps if I
    > had said "I would bet that most of you usenet cops were an only child" it
    > would have been more clear to you. An only child is one that grows up
    > without the social interactions of siblings and therefore often lacks an
    > understanding of how to relate to their peers. A lack of social grace.
    >
    > But I think your assertion is backwards.
    > > Most people who appreciate consideration of others and politeness are
    > > *older* not younger.
    > >
    > > Honestly? This whole posting discussion isn't that big a deal to me, I
    > > typically just ignore posts that are constructed poorly. But you made
    > > this into an academic exercise. You have yet to explain why people
    > > *shouldn't* bottom post whilst we have explained or linked to places
    > > that explain why it's significantly better not to top-post (amongst
    > > other things).
    >
    > You have missed the ENTIRE point, I'm not trying to tell you how to post, I
    > don't care how you post. My point is that it isn't better to top, bottom or
    > interlace post (do whatever best fits the situation), my point is that it is
    > rude and insulting behavior to constantly admonish people for not posting in
    > a manner that you and some others prefer.
    >
    > You post however you want and I will not bitch about it or tell you to do it
    > another way. Do it however you want. I'm not going to presume to tell you
    > how it should be done and I don't expect you to tell me. If I don't read
    > your post or vice versa it isn't going to reduce the value of the usenet
    > experience to either one of us.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >
    > > Randy S.
    >
    >
  29. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    "Randy S." <rswittno@spamgmail.com> wrote in message
    news:d3j9r1$1gg2$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu...
    >
    > >>>2. Many people top post because in many cases it is the logical way to
    > >
    > > post.
    > >
    > >>That may be true in some cases, but there are far too many instances
    > >>of top posting caused by sheer laziness. Quoting an entire 100-line
    > >>article to add a few lines at the top is being thoughtless, not being
    > >>logical.
    > >>-Joe
    > >
    > RG wrote:
    > > Is it any better to quote an entire 100 line article to add a few
    > lines to
    > > the bottom?
    > >
    > >
    >
    > No, but that's a different courtesy entirely, snipping out unneeded
    > content. If you agree that it's courteous to not quote unnecessarily,
    > why can't you agree that it's courteous to bottom-post rather than top
    > post? What makes one courtesy valid, and the other one invalid? Who
    > draws the line, and why?

    I didn't say it was or was not courteous to snip or not snip. The original
    poster implied that top posters would not snip and I don't really think
    there is any connection between the two actions. I think courteous behavior
    is to not point out to strangers that how to do something that can be done
    in many ways and is routinely done in many ways.


    >
    > Randy S.
  30. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    LOL.

    "Derek A. Bill" <derekbill@allsummerlong.com> wrote in message
    news:130420051036352543%derekbill@allsummerlong.com...
    > When I open a post and there's no original text at the top, I just
    > figure someone accidentally hit the SEND button. What exactly does
    > bottom-posting look like?
    >
    > Derek
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > In article <kbb7e.11336$L64.3689@okepread07>, RG <No@nfw.com> wrote:
    >
    > > In spite of my better judgement, one more time.....
    > >
    > >
    > > "Randy S." <rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
    > > news:d3hodp$12h4$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu...
    > > > > My last thoughts on this subject:
    > > > >
    > > > > 1. Usenet is not the real world. Analogies with the real world are
    not
    > > > > valid.
    > > >
    > > > Bullshit. The whole point of analogies is to compare two disparate
    > > > things to point out they're similarities. The point is that they
    *are*
    > > > disparate. Social skills apply in both Usenet and the real world, and
    > > > people still use social conventions to get along. We have conventions
    > > > that LOL stands for something as does AFAIK. Are you going to now
    come
    > > > out and say they stand for different things?
    > >
    > > Grace in social skills in real life avoids correcting someone for things
    > > that are harmless and for things that might not be done the way you
    prefer.
    > > An example, you prefer to button your shirt such that the collar remains
    > > open by one button. You prefer this because the real world convention is
    > > that it looks more refined and is more socially acceptable (and I would
    > > agree). You go to a party and casually observe someone who has their top
    > > three buttons undone, the shirt is spread out showing lots of ugly male
    > > chest. This is certainly against normally accepted social conventions
    but do
    > > you think it's okay to walk up to him and tell him he shouldn't dress
    that
    > > way? That he appears low class and stupid? I submit that doing that
    could
    > > not only be somewhat dangerous but would be just as objectionable as the
    > > shirt. An accepted social convention is that is rude and unacceptable
    > > behavior is to be avoided. Many people feel that being corrected by a
    > > stranger over what is esentially a personal preference is rude behavior.
    > > Social skills is a two-edged sword.
    > >
    > > >
    > > > > 2. Many people top post because in many cases it is the logical way
    to
    > > post.
    > > >
    > > > Look, there are times that top posting isn't a big deal. A line of
    text
    > > > at the top of a short post is probably fine. Of course a bottom post
    in
    > > > that situation would be fine as well. If the whole post fits on one
    > > > screen it's not too hard to figure out the flow. It's when you have
    > > > multiple screens and long threads that bottom posting becomes much
    more
    > > > convenient. There are times that interleaving (like this here) is
    > > > better. But most of the time bottom posting just works better for
    > > everyone.
    > >
    > > I'm impressed that you said "there are times that top posting isn't a
    big
    > > deal".
    > > Actually if a reply is more than just a few lines to a long post, I
    prefer
    > > interleaving because that IS the most understandable.
    > >
    > > ***snipped text***
    > >
    > >
    > > > > 5. If usenet cops feel enabled to call people out when they don't
    > > approve of
    > > > > the posting style, then they should expect the same treatment from
    > > people
    > > > > that are less regimented.
    > > >
    > > > Huh? Nobody's calling anybody out, we're pointing out how make your
    > > > posts more readable for everyone (see link above).
    > >
    > > I believe what got all this started was "The biggest drawback of this NG
    is
    > > top posting twits like you."
    > > If that isn't calling someone out then what is?? Is use of the term
    "twit"
    > > socially acceptable to you?
    > >
    > > >
    > > > > 6. You say what you want about Godwin's law, but the fact remains
    you
    > > usenet
    > > > > cops would have made fine Nazis.
    > > >
    > > > Now you're just being lazy and stupid. If you're going to attempt to
    > > > flame, at least be more creative. It also makes no sense. The Nazi's
    > > > aren't known as evil because they enforced rules that people didn't
    > > > like, they're known that way because they tortured and killed people.
    > > > As someone with relatives who survived (and some who didn't)
    Auschwitz,
    > > > I find your casual use of the term "Nazi" more than a little
    offensive.
    > > > I know what a Nazi is (having heard 1st hand accounts), and we're no
    > > > Nazis.
    > >
    > > So you can call me lazy and stupid and I can't say you would have made a
    > > good Nazi? That sure makes sense.
    > >
    > > Nazis were very good at blindly following orders, that is the
    characteristic
    > > I was referencing.. I certainly don't think usenet cops are evil or
    torture
    > > and kill people (at least most of them). Did you really not understand
    what
    > > I meant? Would you have preferred I called you a lemming?
    > >
    > > >
    > > > > 7. It must be really tough going though life like you people do. You
    > > can't
    > > > > control the physical world so you try like hell to control the
    usenet
    > > world.
    > > >
    > > > Look, if you want to throw a tantrum, go ahead. But you could try to
    > > > make some sense? I like people I have to deal with to at least
    attempt
    > > > to act polite. It's not that big of a request. It has nothing to do
    > > > with "control".
    > >
    > > If you like people to respond to you in a polite manner, then treat them
    the
    > > same way you want to be treated. The old Golden Rule works pretty well.
    > >
    > > >
    > > > > 8. I would bet that most of you usenet cops were only children. I
    would
    > > > > further bet that if I looked in your kitchen cabinets all the
    glasses
    > > would
    > > > > be lined up in a perfect grid.
    > > >
    > > > Heh, I'm lucky if I get them out of the sink at night. And yes, at
    one
    > > > point 20 years and more ago I was a child, though I don't know if I'd
    > > > characterize it as "only".
    > >
    > > An only child is one that doesn't have any brothers or sisters. Perhaps
    if I
    > > had said "I would bet that most of you usenet cops were an only child"
    it
    > > would have been more clear to you. An only child is one that grows up
    > > without the social interactions of siblings and therefore often lacks an
    > > understanding of how to relate to their peers. A lack of social grace.
    > >
    > > But I think your assertion is backwards.
    > > > Most people who appreciate consideration of others and politeness are
    > > > *older* not younger.
    > > >
    > > > Honestly? This whole posting discussion isn't that big a deal to me,
    I
    > > > typically just ignore posts that are constructed poorly. But you made
    > > > this into an academic exercise. You have yet to explain why people
    > > > *shouldn't* bottom post whilst we have explained or linked to places
    > > > that explain why it's significantly better not to top-post (amongst
    > > > other things).
    > >
    > > You have missed the ENTIRE point, I'm not trying to tell you how to
    post, I
    > > don't care how you post. My point is that it isn't better to top, bottom
    or
    > > interlace post (do whatever best fits the situation), my point is that
    it is
    > > rude and insulting behavior to constantly admonish people for not
    posting in
    > > a manner that you and some others prefer.
    > >
    > > You post however you want and I will not bitch about it or tell you to
    do it
    > > another way. Do it however you want. I'm not going to presume to tell
    you
    > > how it should be done and I don't expect you to tell me. If I don't read
    > > your post or vice versa it isn't going to reduce the value of the usenet
    > > experience to either one of us.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > >
    > > > Randy S.
    > >
    > >
  31. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 10:36:35 -0600, "Derek A. Bill"
    <derekbill@allsummerlong.com> wrote:

    >When I open a post and there's no original text at the top, I just
    >figure someone accidentally hit the SEND button. What exactly does
    >bottom-posting look like?
    >
    >Derek
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >In article <kbb7e.11336$L64.3689@okepread07>, RG <No@nfw.com> wrote:
    >
    >> In spite of my better judgement, one more time.....
    >>
    >>
    >> "Randy S." <rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
    >> news:d3hodp$12h4$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu...
    >> > > My last thoughts on this subject:
    >> > >
    >> > > 1. Usenet is not the real world. Analogies with the real world are not
    >> > > valid.
    >> >
    >> > Bullshit. The whole point of analogies is to compare two disparate
    >> > things to point out they're similarities. The point is that they *are*
    >> > disparate. Social skills apply in both Usenet and the real world, and
    >> > people still use social conventions to get along. We have conventions
    >> > that LOL stands for something as does AFAIK. Are you going to now come
    >> > out and say they stand for different things?
    >>
    >> Grace in social skills in real life avoids correcting someone for things
    >> that are harmless and for things that might not be done the way you prefer.
    >> An example, you prefer to button your shirt such that the collar remains
    >> open by one button. You prefer this because the real world convention is
    >> that it looks more refined and is more socially acceptable (and I would
    >> agree). You go to a party and casually observe someone who has their top
    >> three buttons undone, the shirt is spread out showing lots of ugly male
    >> chest. This is certainly against normally accepted social conventions but do
    >> you think it's okay to walk up to him and tell him he shouldn't dress that
    >> way? That he appears low class and stupid? I submit that doing that could
    >> not only be somewhat dangerous but would be just as objectionable as the
    >> shirt. An accepted social convention is that is rude and unacceptable
    >> behavior is to be avoided. Many people feel that being corrected by a
    >> stranger over what is esentially a personal preference is rude behavior.
    >> Social skills is a two-edged sword.
    >>
    >> >
    >> > > 2. Many people top post because in many cases it is the logical way to
    >> post.
    >> >
    >> > Look, there are times that top posting isn't a big deal. A line of text
    >> > at the top of a short post is probably fine. Of course a bottom post in
    >> > that situation would be fine as well. If the whole post fits on one
    >> > screen it's not too hard to figure out the flow. It's when you have
    >> > multiple screens and long threads that bottom posting becomes much more
    >> > convenient. There are times that interleaving (like this here) is
    >> > better. But most of the time bottom posting just works better for
    >> everyone.
    >>
    >> I'm impressed that you said "there are times that top posting isn't a big
    >> deal".
    >> Actually if a reply is more than just a few lines to a long post, I prefer
    >> interleaving because that IS the most understandable.
    >>
    >> ***snipped text***
    >>
    >>
    >> > > 5. If usenet cops feel enabled to call people out when they don't
    >> approve of
    >> > > the posting style, then they should expect the same treatment from
    >> people
    >> > > that are less regimented.
    >> >
    >> > Huh? Nobody's calling anybody out, we're pointing out how make your
    >> > posts more readable for everyone (see link above).
    >>
    >> I believe what got all this started was "The biggest drawback of this NG is
    >> top posting twits like you."
    >> If that isn't calling someone out then what is?? Is use of the term "twit"
    >> socially acceptable to you?
    >>
    >> >
    >> > > 6. You say what you want about Godwin's law, but the fact remains you
    >> usenet
    >> > > cops would have made fine Nazis.
    >> >
    >> > Now you're just being lazy and stupid. If you're going to attempt to
    >> > flame, at least be more creative. It also makes no sense. The Nazi's
    >> > aren't known as evil because they enforced rules that people didn't
    >> > like, they're known that way because they tortured and killed people.
    >> > As someone with relatives who survived (and some who didn't) Auschwitz,
    >> > I find your casual use of the term "Nazi" more than a little offensive.
    >> > I know what a Nazi is (having heard 1st hand accounts), and we're no
    >> > Nazis.
    >>
    >> So you can call me lazy and stupid and I can't say you would have made a
    >> good Nazi? That sure makes sense.
    >>
    >> Nazis were very good at blindly following orders, that is the characteristic
    >> I was referencing.. I certainly don't think usenet cops are evil or torture
    >> and kill people (at least most of them). Did you really not understand what
    >> I meant? Would you have preferred I called you a lemming?
    >>
    >> >
    >> > > 7. It must be really tough going though life like you people do. You
    >> can't
    >> > > control the physical world so you try like hell to control the usenet
    >> world.
    >> >
    >> > Look, if you want to throw a tantrum, go ahead. But you could try to
    >> > make some sense? I like people I have to deal with to at least attempt
    >> > to act polite. It's not that big of a request. It has nothing to do
    >> > with "control".
    >>
    >> If you like people to respond to you in a polite manner, then treat them the
    >> same way you want to be treated. The old Golden Rule works pretty well.
    >>
    >> >
    >> > > 8. I would bet that most of you usenet cops were only children. I would
    >> > > further bet that if I looked in your kitchen cabinets all the glasses
    >> would
    >> > > be lined up in a perfect grid.
    >> >
    >> > Heh, I'm lucky if I get them out of the sink at night. And yes, at one
    >> > point 20 years and more ago I was a child, though I don't know if I'd
    >> > characterize it as "only".
    >>
    >> An only child is one that doesn't have any brothers or sisters. Perhaps if I
    >> had said "I would bet that most of you usenet cops were an only child" it
    >> would have been more clear to you. An only child is one that grows up
    >> without the social interactions of siblings and therefore often lacks an
    >> understanding of how to relate to their peers. A lack of social grace.
    >>
    >> But I think your assertion is backwards.
    >> > Most people who appreciate consideration of others and politeness are
    >> > *older* not younger.
    >> >
    >> > Honestly? This whole posting discussion isn't that big a deal to me, I
    >> > typically just ignore posts that are constructed poorly. But you made
    >> > this into an academic exercise. You have yet to explain why people
    >> > *shouldn't* bottom post whilst we have explained or linked to places
    >> > that explain why it's significantly better not to top-post (amongst
    >> > other things).
    >>
    >> You have missed the ENTIRE point, I'm not trying to tell you how to post, I
    >> don't care how you post. My point is that it isn't better to top, bottom or
    >> interlace post (do whatever best fits the situation), my point is that it is
    >> rude and insulting behavior to constantly admonish people for not posting in
    >> a manner that you and some others prefer.
    >>
    >> You post however you want and I will not bitch about it or tell you to do it
    >> another way. Do it however you want. I'm not going to presume to tell you
    >> how it should be done and I don't expect you to tell me. If I don't read
    >> your post or vice versa it isn't going to reduce the value of the usenet
    >> experience to either one of us.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> >
    >> > Randy S.
    >>
    >>

    It looks like the opposite of what a dimwitted doofus
    would post.

    Sean
  32. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    > Grace in social skills in real life avoids correcting someone for things
    > that are harmless and for things that might not be done the way you prefer.
    > An example, you prefer to button your shirt such that the collar remains
    > open by one button. You prefer this because the real world convention is
    > that it looks more refined and is more socially acceptable (and I would
    > agree). You go to a party and casually observe someone who has their top
    > three buttons undone, the shirt is spread out showing lots of ugly male
    > chest. This is certainly against normally accepted social conventions but do
    > you think it's okay to walk up to him and tell him he shouldn't dress that
    > way? That he appears low class and stupid? I submit that doing that could
    > not only be somewhat dangerous but would be just as objectionable as the
    > shirt. An accepted social convention is that is rude and unacceptable
    > behavior is to be avoided. Many people feel that being corrected by a
    > stranger over what is esentially a personal preference is rude behavior.
    > Social skills is a two-edged sword.

    Sure, but there are other times that approaching someone to ask them to
    cease or change their behavior is perfectly acceptable if not
    commendable. I keep going back to the example of talking during a movie
    in a theater. I've seen people ask talkers to be quiet *many* times,
    and while the talker may not have appreciated it, everyone else in the
    theater did!

    Posts on Usenet are not directed towards one or even a couple people to
    read, they are directed at the general usenet audience. They should be
    constructed in a way that make it easiest for that audience to read it.

    >>>2. Many people top post because in many cases it is the logical way to
    >
    > post.
    >
    >>Look, there are times that top posting isn't a big deal. A line of text
    >>at the top of a short post is probably fine. Of course a bottom post in
    >>that situation would be fine as well. If the whole post fits on one
    >>screen it's not too hard to figure out the flow. It's when you have
    >>multiple screens and long threads that bottom posting becomes much more
    >>convenient. There are times that interleaving (like this here) is
    >>better. But most of the time bottom posting just works better for
    >
    > everyone.
    >
    > I'm impressed that you said "there are times that top posting isn't a big
    > deal".
    > Actually if a reply is more than just a few lines to a long post, I prefer
    > interleaving because that IS the most understandable.
    >
    > ***snipped text***

    Nothing's always black and white. But 99.999% of the time people
    top-post because they're lazy, not because it's the best way to do it.

    >>>5. If usenet cops feel enabled to call people out when they don't approve of
    >>>the posting style, then they should expect the same treatment from people
    >>>that are less regimented.
    >>
    >>Huh? Nobody's calling anybody out, we're pointing out how make your
    >>posts more readable for everyone (see link above).
    >
    > I believe what got all this started was "The biggest drawback of this NG is
    > top posting twits like you."
    > If that isn't calling someone out then what is?? Is use of the term "twit"
    > socially acceptable to you?

    That particular post was from an entity called "Sean". Please don't
    take posts from a bottom-feeding troll as representative of the group.
    There's no question that that post is inappropriate and insulting, and
    is a horrible way to recommend bottom-posting to someone. It's
    basically an indefensible comment.


    > So you can call me lazy and stupid and I can't say you would have made a
    > good Nazi? That sure makes sense.
    >
    > Nazis were very good at blindly following orders, that is the characteristic
    > I was referencing.. I certainly don't think usenet cops are evil or torture
    > and kill people (at least most of them). Did you really not understand what
    > I meant? Would you have preferred I called you a lemming?

    1 million percent preferred. A lemming did not kill my
    great-grandfather. When people use the term "Nazi", blindly following
    orders is not what comes to my mind.

    >>Look, if you want to throw a tantrum, go ahead. But you could try to
    >>make some sense? I like people I have to deal with to at least attempt
    >>to act polite. It's not that big of a request. It has nothing to do
    >>with "control".
    >
    >
    > If you like people to respond to you in a polite manner, then treat them the
    > same way you want to be treated. The old Golden Rule works pretty well.

    Agreed. Sean's original post was as infantile as he is. The only reason
    I used "lazy and stupid" (and note I only called the accusation that,
    not you) was in response to the Nazi comment, which I find abhorrent as
    it cheapens what is a *truly* evil concept.

    > You have missed the ENTIRE point, I'm not trying to tell you how to post, I
    > don't care how you post. My point is that it isn't better to top, bottom or
    > interlace post (do whatever best fits the situation), my point is that it is
    > rude and insulting behavior to constantly admonish people for not posting in
    > a manner that you and some others prefer.
    >
    > You post however you want and I will not bitch about it or tell you to do it
    > another way. Do it however you want. I'm not going to presume to tell you
    > how it should be done and I don't expect you to tell me. If I don't read
    > your post or vice versa it isn't going to reduce the value of the usenet
    > experience to either one of us.

    I think that the biggest gripe is that the *vast* majority of the time,
    top-posting is done out of laziness. The past dozen posts in this
    thread have been written interleaved, because we both realized that it
    was easier to comprehend that way. Imagine how much harder to
    comprehend they would have been had they been top *or* bottom posted!
    The point was that we both took the effort to compose them in the
    clearest manner possible. Many posters don't. If someone top-posts an
    "LOL!" on top of a 3 line message it's not going to be hard to
    understand. But it's also important to know that there are times that
    at top-post *is* hard to understand, and that bottom-posting is clearer
    most of the time (unless interleaving makes more sense).

    Randy S.
  33. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    How is that worse than quoting 300 lines of posting to add one line at the bottom?
    I'd say the bottom poster is more thoughtless in this case.

    When I don't see unquoted lines in the top two screen pages, I go on to the next post.

    "Joe Smith" <joe@inwap.com> wrote in message news:NqCdnel7F_KVR8HfRVn-1g@comcast.com...
    > RG wrote:
    >
    > > 2. Many people top post because in many cases it is the logical way to post.
    >
    > That may be true in some cases, but there are far too many instances
    > of top posting caused by sheer laziness. Quoting an entire 100-line
    > article to add a few lines at the top is being thoughtless, not being
    > logical.
    > -Joe
  34. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    Jack Ak wrote:
    > How is that worse than quoting 300 lines of posting to add one line at the bottom?
    > I'd say the bottom poster is more thoughtless in this case.
    >
    > When I don't see unquoted lines in the top two screen pages, I go on to the next post.

    Courteous posters also snip out unneeded text. If there are more than 2
    screens of quoted text at the top, some of it needed to be snipped or it
    should have been an interleaved reply. I think your response to that
    type of post is a good one, and I do it myself.

    Randy S.
  35. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    In article <130420051036352543%derekbill@allsummerlong.com>,
    Derek A. Bill <derekbill@allsummerlong.com> top-posted (grr):
    >When I open a post and there's no original text at the top, I just
    >figure someone accidentally hit the SEND button. What exactly does
    >bottom-posting look like?

    It looks like this.

    When I open a post and there's a two- or three-line "reply" followed by 1000
    lines of other people's posts reproduced in their entirety, I just figure
    the poster is either a clueless n00b or (if it has been educated numerous
    times in the past) just plain obstinate. :-P

    If this were an online version of Jeopardy!, top-posting might make sense.
    It isn't, however, so it doesn't. Post accordingly.

    _/_
    / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
    (IIGS( http://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
    \_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFCXWtGVgTKos01OwkRApF8AJ0cu2WLItn1WFGpefwXscXZrR707gCeMrxy
    /wXUJWy8jHl44DmqHk1xq34=
    =UX9P
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
  36. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    * Rick S. wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
    > To me this whole thread is a bunch of anal retentive nonsense -- and you
    > didn't have to scroll all the way down to read my two cents.

    You added nothing but noise to a dead thread. I dont think anyone
    *wanted* to read it. Good Work!

    --
    David
    Small is beautiful.
Ask a new question

Read More

Ptv Tivo Tivo Video Toshiba