Just a note for future google groups searches... - Page 2

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

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 17:53:43 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <qJD7d.1266$z04.35@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote:
>
>> Bottom posters make me scroll through a weeks worth of already read
>> messages to see the reply - a real time waster!
>
>No, bottom posters who are arrogant and lazy and as a result don't trim
>their posts are responsible for that.
>

Somewhat more so than top posters who are arrogant and lazy and as a
result don't trim their posts.

>Bottom posters who trim their posts (like I did this one) to make a
>normal flow of ideas are fine--in fact, they're to be encouraged.
>

OK, botton-posting is fine when you quote a few lines (but DO quote
SOME).

>Top posters who don't trim anything but who simply post their stuff at
>the top--like you, Bruce--are as bad as anything the top posters
>themselves complain about. You say what you want to say, then you force
>others to scroll down through the quoted material to find the little
>snippet of material you're talking about.
>

Both top-posting and bottom-posting are all right. In any case, quote
a few lines but not more than a screenful.

>You're just lazy and arrogant. You saw something YOU know you're
>referencing, so you just hit the reply button and type away while it's
>fresh in your mind. Two days later, someone else sees what you write at
>the top of an article--and you might as well be writing in a vacuum for
>all that guy knows. He has no idea what you're writing about, and he's
>not likely to scroll down through the UNTRIMMED quoted material to try
>to correlate what you wrote at the top with what's quoted way down below.
>

Did you consider that maybe he's READ the previous posts in the
thread, and just needs the new material?

>Face it: top posting is bad. It makes you read things backwards.

Like some people have said before, it's the THREAD that's like a
conversation, not THAT POST BY ITSELF.

>Untrimmed quoting is bad. Put them together--like what you did,
>Bruce--and you have a discourteous, arrogant individual

Untrimmed quoting (quoting more than a screenful) in bad.
Bottom-posting makes it worse.

> who assumes the
>world revolves around him and his laziness.

Would you still prefer bottom-posting after reading SEVERAL HUNDRED
posts with replies below excessive quotation?

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

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 23:47:54 GMT, John in Detroit
<Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Mark Lloyd wrote:
>
>> I didn't quite finish that last post, but that;s what I started to
>> say. The fact that it's in the netgear manual (which I haven't read
>> fully yet, but it looks better than the D-Link manual) makes it look
>> like Netgear has had it (fixed IPs for DHCP) longer (and it could be
>> freer of bugs).
>
>Near as I can say there are no bugs. It simply works. (I use a D-Link)
>
>The only major difference I've seen was in the FILTERS area.
>
>As noted, I use a D-link low end.. MAC-Address filtering applies to both
>LAN and Wireless-LAN So when I plugged in my Replay... It did not work
>
>Once I added it's MAC to the filters... It worked great
>
>My Daughter's Linksys.... Filters apply ONLY to the wireless side of things.
>

My Linksys has both types of filters.

>Some labels are different between the two as well.

--
84 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

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

In article <u1H7d.3252$5b1.2799@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
John in Detroit <Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Now... For my complaint.... OVER QUOTING

Absolutely. Trim your posts, quote only what you're replying to, and
put it all in order.

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

In article <7eeul0t9pk7f167d6p56re8lo2fhar4fn7@4ax.com>, Sam <notmail>
wrote:

> >You're just lazy and arrogant. You saw something YOU know you're
> >referencing, so you just hit the reply button and type away while it's
> >fresh in your mind. Two days later, someone else sees what you write at
> >the top of an article--and you might as well be writing in a vacuum for
> >all that guy knows. He has no idea what you're writing about, and he's
> >not likely to scroll down through the UNTRIMMED quoted material to try
> >to correlate what you wrote at the top with what's quoted way down below.
> >
>
> Did you consider that maybe he's READ the previous posts in the
> thread, and just needs the new material?

You're assuming a vacuum. News posting and propagation isn't an exact
science. Sometimes articles don't come through; you have to assume that
the reader didn't read the article in question. Also, it's not just a
conversation between two people; this isn't a circuit-switched
telephone. Other people are reading, and even if you got the previous
article, others may not have. Also, others may have jumped into the
middle.

And then there's archiving. Google's groups are sometimes an important
way to resolve problems and do research; people doing that definitely
haven't been involved in the conversation, and not to quote
appropriately definitely does them a disservice.

In other words, you're not thinking about anyone but yourself if you
assume a perfect world and assume that everyone who is reading what you
wrote has also read AND REMEMBERED PERFECTLY everything that came before
it.

Not to quote appropriately and post replies in order is rude and
arrogant.

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

In article <7eeul0t9pk7f167d6p56re8lo2fhar4fn7@4ax.com>, Sam <notmail>
wrote:

> Would you still prefer bottom-posting after reading SEVERAL HUNDRED
> posts with replies below excessive quotation?

No. And that's why I said to trim the posts you're quoting, AND put
your replies in under the relevant quotes so that people who read it can
have some clue what everyone's talking about.

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

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 07:53:53 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <7eeul0t9pk7f167d6p56re8lo2fhar4fn7@4ax.com>, Sam <notmail>
>wrote:
>
>> >You're just lazy and arrogant. You saw something YOU know you're
>> >referencing, so you just hit the reply button and type away while it's
>> >fresh in your mind. Two days later, someone else sees what you write at
>> >the top of an article--and you might as well be writing in a vacuum for
>> >all that guy knows. He has no idea what you're writing about, and he's
>> >not likely to scroll down through the UNTRIMMED quoted material to try
>> >to correlate what you wrote at the top with what's quoted way down below.
>> >
>>
>> Did you consider that maybe he's READ the previous posts in the
>> thread, and just needs the new material?
>
>You're assuming a vacuum. News posting and propagation isn't an exact
>science. Sometimes articles don't come through; you have to assume that
>the reader didn't read the article in question. Also, it's not just a
>conversation between two people; this isn't a circuit-switched
>telephone. Other people are reading, and even if you got the previous
>article, others may not have. Also, others may have jumped into the
>middle.
>
>And then there's archiving. Google's groups are sometimes an important
>way to resolve problems and do research; people doing that definitely
>haven't been involved in the conversation, and not to quote
>appropriately definitely does them a disservice.
>
>In other words, you're not thinking about anyone but yourself if you
>assume a perfect world and assume that everyone who is reading what you
>wrote has also read AND REMEMBERED PERFECTLY everything that came before
>it.
>
>Not to quote appropriately and post replies in order is rude and
>arrogant.

I agree, Elmo, and these are some of my biggest pet peeves about new
users to Usenet and some oldtimers who seemingly think that their
behavior should be accepted regardless of how rude or arrogant it may
seem to everyone else. Sometimes I long for the old days when people
were more considerate, but the proliferation of pc's and easy access
has made Usenet a less fulfilling experience to some degree.


--

Any information contained in this post is merely a
restatement of information found in the news archives
of the newsgroups alt.dss.hack, alt.binaries.satellite-tv,
and alt.dbs.echostar.hack found on Google Groups. The person
making this post has no firsthand knowledge of bypassing
satellite security measures.

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

In article <0v70m01b9u6aupuih5et8gs7o8tbot52sb@4ax.com>,
Sam <dont@email> wrote:

> >Top posting is never right.
>
> Unless you care about your readers. Maybe you don't.

I *always* care about my readers. And top posting is *never* right. In
fact, if you care about your readers, you will quote a bit of what
you're responding to--in order to make it clear what you're talking
about--and then reply underneath.

What you *won't* do if you care about your readers is top-post, where
they have to work to figure out the flow of the conversation. Remember,
this isn't a real-time conversation; it's a series of postings which may
or may not flow through the internet in a perfect and timely fashion.
It's only polite NOT to assume a perfect and timely flow, and NOT to
assume that the reader has been paying 100% attention to the thread as
if it were some sort of death chess match.

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

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 07:53:53 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <7eeul0t9pk7f167d6p56re8lo2fhar4fn7@4ax.com>, Sam <notmail>
>wrote:
>
>> >You're just lazy and arrogant. You saw something YOU know you're
>> >referencing, so you just hit the reply button and type away while it's
>> >fresh in your mind. Two days later,

News servers usually retain messages much longer than that.

>> > someone else sees what you write at
>> >the top of an article--and you might as well be writing in a vacuum for
>> >all that guy knows. He has no idea what you're writing about, and he's
>> >not likely to scroll down through the UNTRIMMED quoted material to try
>> >to correlate what you wrote at the top with what's quoted way down below.
>> >
>>
>> Did you consider that maybe he's READ the previous posts in the
>> thread, and just needs the new material?
>
>You're assuming a vacuum.

Maybe so. I'm assuming that people are willing to read. I don't
support aliteracy (the unwillingness to read, despite being able to).

> News posting and propagation isn't an exact
>science.

Of course not. Perfection does not exist in this reality. However,
messages are more often there than not.

> Sometimes articles don't come through; you have to assume that
>the reader didn't read the article in question.

That's somewhat like assuming the lack of a brain. Annoying to those
who have.

> Also, it's not just a
>conversation between two people; this isn't a circuit-switched
>telephone. Other people are reading,

And of course have access to the entire thread (unless maybe you're
replying to something posted months ago).

> and even if you got the previous
>article, others may not have. Also, others may have jumped into the
>middle.
>

And, for some strange reason, can't actually read the previous posts.
Are you saying YOU can't?

>And then there's archiving. Google's groups are sometimes an important
>way to resolve problems and do research;

Yes they are. Why do keep assuming that they (as well as all readers)
are incompetant?

> people doing that definitely
>haven't been involved in the conversation,

And have the conversation available, without redundant copies in EVERY
message of that thread.

>and not to quote
>appropriately definitely does them a disservice.
>

Sounds like you're recommending quoting EVERYTHING and snipping
NOTHING.

>In other words, you're not thinking about anyone but yourself if you
>assume a perfect world

As I said above, perfection is something that does not (and can not)
exist. Please stop saying that. I'm assuming a real world, where
people can and do learn things (like how to use a newsreader).

>and assume that everyone who is reading what you
>wrote has also read AND REMEMBERED PERFECTLY everything that came before
>it.
>

So apparently, you assume the lack of access to a decent newsreader
and news server.

>Not to quote appropriately and post replies in order is rude and
>arrogant.

And so is making it difficult for the reader by posting at the bottom
of a long message. Also, messing up the attribution of quotes, as you
did.

Note that you didn't quote appropriately (notice the first attribution
line. It doesn't belong with the following text).

So, bottom-posting (and that complete, ordered quoting) is a way to
provide support for the brainless and anti-intellectual, while making
life even more difficult for those without such limitations. It
"helps" newbies while restricting thier abiliy to improve, as well as
interfering with the activities of former newbies.

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

In article <em80m0lncjestrubmrn1ie89t4lj2mvqpe@4ax.com>, Sam <notmail>
wrote:

> >and not to quote
> >appropriately definitely does them a disservice.
> >
>
> Sounds like you're recommending quoting EVERYTHING and snipping
> NOTHING.

What part of "quote appropriately" didn't you understand?

I said "quote appropriately". I didn't say "quote excessively" or
"quote everything". Did I? No, I did not.

But YOU'RE trying to spin it into something I never said. Why? Because
you seem to have an agenda of some kind, and when someone shows the
flaws in your agenda, you spin.

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

Times have changed old folks.. Get with it or don't complain...

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-F44469.06013402102004@text.usenetserver.com...
> In article <315sl095v714noiot9pjmb0a8d1kegpbng@4ax.com>,
> Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@5xxxmail.com5xxx> wrote:
>
> > >Top posting makes it so much easier!
> > >
> >
> > Yes, and for some reason people complain about it.
>
> Not "for some reason". For valid reasons.
>