OT--Taking on city hall
Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:
"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message ... "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message ... snip---- I'll keep my eyes open. Have you given any thought to land in the general Onalaska area? I don't get south or west much, so it's a lot easier to keep watch near by. I don't have a favorite real estate agent, but I may be able to check with one and see what's available in the Winlock/Toledo area. . I'll let you know if I hear anything of substance. You're likely looking at a 5 acre minimum purchase. They're making it hard to build on anything less, thanks to the state and controlled development. There are some exceptions. Thanks, Harold--it's much appreciated.... And no, we haven't looked around up as far as Onalaska yet--last time I was in that area was several years ago...been looking at the elevations and whatnot using Google Earth, but really I need to get up there and have a drive around--along Highway 12 anywhere to the west of Mayfield Reservoir, else someplace along SR 508 just might do it. -- SVL That's much closer to home, and in general pretty nice property. Sadly, property values have escalated seriously in the past couple years, so the killer bargains are gone now. I'm still speechless that we paid only $17,500 for our 5-1/2 acres with an approved septic system. Best surprise of all was when we found out the standing alder alone was worth more than we paid for the land. I think you're more likely to find a good buy along 508 than along 12, but I'll check anything that comes available. Just tonight a neighbor made mention that he might sell off some of his land, but it's way too soon to know anything. Are you sure you want a stream? It's not always a good thing, for they force you to stay away from it now----it can render property valueless in some ways because you can't develop it. If you do, you missed a great chance right across from me. 5 acre lots that sold for about $25,000 a few years ago. A nice stream runs through most of them. We're high and dry, but on a slight slope that leads to that stream. Secluded? View? Wooded? Logged? State your choices so I don't drive you nuts with the wrong package. Harold Sam wants a piece with a little geothermal activity. G but not too much to shake the house. John |
OT--(was: Taking on city hall) Top Posting
In article t,
"John Busby" wrote: If I am following a thread in a newsgroup, I prefer to read top posted responses because as soon as you open the message, the latest response is right in front of you, and you don't have to scroll down to the bottom of the message to read it. The problem is the nature of Usenet: there is no guarantee that the message you will next read is the message following the last post you read. Propagation delays mean that you could be reading a reply to another posting. People who have short expire times on their Usenet servers may not see the original question, or it may not yet have propagated to that server. You have made the assumption that there is 'a' thread: the longer a discussion goes, the more likely that there will be a number of threads with the same root thread. This thread has already broken up into multiple threads. Many people misunderstand the nature of Usenet and their newsreaders: some assume that it is like a web forum and that messages remain fixed in place and that others see the contents of a newsgroup as they do. I have even seen people trying to refer to other postings as "The message three up from this one", as if that makes any sense at all to anyone other than them (and at that point in time, too). I notice that you say "I prefer to read" and "as soon as you [i] open the message". Usenet is not supposed to be about how everyone can cater to a particular reader's preferences, but to act as an efficient method of communicating one to many. This process is assisted by formatting messages in a way that reaches as many people as possible in a concise, clear and unambiguous manner. If you want your posting to be read and understood by as many people as possible, then you must spend the time writing in a way that make it worthwhile for the reader to spend the time reading your posting. Spelling, punctuation, layout, and tone all make a lasting impression on the reader. (This is not criticising any of these in John's posting - otherwise I'd have sent an email - its a plea to all of the posters out there.) If I open a post and see four lines of text followed by a page of quoted text, then my desire to even read that four lines of text is reduced, since it shows a lack of courtesy in being not able to trim the material on which you are basing your reply. The inclusion of this material must be important, otherwise you would not have included it, right? And therefore I need to read it to fully understand your response, right? And so you are expecting me to read the text quoted below your response, a post I may (or may not) have read, to understand your reply to this. Well, I feel that it is lazy, and since I read many newsgroups and have only a limited time to do so, asking me to try to work out how your response relates to the following quoted text is not going to make me as sympathetic to your post as it could be. Quoting no text at all is roughly equivalent (in my opinion) since again we have to do extra work to determine what the reply is in response to. If you say "Well, I'm in a hurry, so I can't be expected to cut out all the non-relevant lines" then you are asking us to do this work for you when we read your posting: by top posting without trimming you are telling us you have not bothered to spend time to write a careful and considered opinion on some topic. I submit that the "Yeah, I agree!" postings at the bottom of a slab of quoted text indicates that you didn't spend any time thinking out your response - therefore the value of your response is going to be quite low to me. So, what do I do? Well I use a newsreader that allows me to easily killfile people. If, as I find in some newsgroups, someone tends to post a single line at the end of over a page of text, they get added to the killfile for a time, usually two weeks. This is the extreme case though. Life is too short to scroll down pages of quoted text to find "ROTFLMAO" or "I agree", or indeed just to find a posting that just contains the aforementioned single lines. Seeing it at the top of the posting has saved me the scrolling, but leaves the same bad feeling in me about the poster. There are some cases where it *is* more appropriate to top post - such as in emails where you might need to see the context to understand all the issues. But, I don't get dozens of emails a day on the same topic and would be just as annoyed by top posting in email if I had to read the same number of emails as I manage to read of Usenet postings. Often, emails have to be forwarded onto someone else, and this means they need the context without having to be sent all the preceding emails and try to work out the thread. That is not the case for Usenet. Just because your newsreader (Microsoft's Outlook Express) puts the cursor at the top of the quoted text does not make it right, any more than arguing that PCs are meant to have viruses since Windows has so many security flaws. In the early days of Usenet, many newsgroups readers placed the cursor at the end of quoted text and even prevented posting unless your added content exceeded the quoted text. Some newsreaders allow you to thread postings by their Subject line, some by Author, some by Reference. Threading by reference allows some newsreaders to graphically show how a thread splits up. Good newsreaders allow a reader to quickly read the posts they are interested in - the text-based nature of Usenet makes it more information dense than forums and Google Groups. But telling your audience to, "Get a better newsreader", is going to alienate some of your audience - after all you don't know what limitations they may have on using a better way of reading your postings. Some people don't have a choice, and yet they could be the people who have the information you want or be the people you want reading your posts. At the end of the day, it's about communication. If you can save one reader a few seconds, then you have saved hundreds if not thousands the same time - it all adds up. And they will thank you for it: not necessarily by overt actions, but in the overall impression that your postings make on them ("Win Friends and Influence People"). That is why bottom posting after appropriate quoting has been found over the years to be the best quoting method. Bill Lee |
OT--Taking on city hall
In article 0GZlf.1118$Ev.505@fed1read06,
"SteveB" wrote: I find that there is so much BS that the whole conversation can be clipped, and just a reply inserted. What BS is this: City Hall, Tractor-reconditioning, or Top Posters? I can't tell since I think I have marked the posting that you are responding to as 'Read' (or maybe not - I can't tell from your posting if I have read it or have yet to read it). As in this case, is there anyone out there who doesn't know what I'm saying, or what I'm responding to? I didn't think so. I have no certainty what you are responding to, but I have an idea it might be regarding Top Posting. Let me see.... 1) Showing the detailed headers in your posting. 2) Extracting the References: header. 3) Looking at the last entry on the line: 4) Opening this referred posting in a new window. Ah, I see what it is about: Dave Hinz wrote, Then your argument is with people who are too lazy to trim old content [from their posts], rather than people who put it in a normal place [at the bottom of the quoted text]. Ah, yes sarcasm=on Much clearer and faster than appropriate quoting and paraphrasing! sarcasm=off HTH Steve Well, since I didn't read your posting until some time after reading the posting you were responding to, with other posts read in between, then I would have to say: "No, your posting did not help". Bill Lee |
OT--Taking on city hall
It's even worse to scroll all the way to the bottom to find that NOTHING is
posted!!!!!!! "John" wrote in message ... Harold and Susan Vordos wrote: "PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message ... "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message ... snip---- I'll keep my eyes open. Have you given any thought to land in the general Onalaska area? I don't get south or west much, so it's a lot easier to keep watch near by. I don't have a favorite real estate agent, but I may be able to check with one and see what's available in the Winlock/Toledo area. . I'll let you know if I hear anything of substance. You're likely looking at a 5 acre minimum purchase. They're making it hard to build on anything less, thanks to the state and controlled development. There are some exceptions. Thanks, Harold--it's much appreciated.... And no, we haven't looked around up as far as Onalaska yet--last time I was in that area was several years ago...been looking at the elevations and whatnot using Google Earth, but really I need to get up there and have a drive around--along Highway 12 anywhere to the west of Mayfield Reservoir, else someplace along SR 508 just might do it. -- SVL That's much closer to home, and in general pretty nice property. Sadly, property values have escalated seriously in the past couple years, so the killer bargains are gone now. I'm still speechless that we paid only $17,500 for our 5-1/2 acres with an approved septic system. Best surprise of all was when we found out the standing alder alone was worth more than we paid for the land. I think you're more likely to find a good buy along 508 than along 12, but I'll check anything that comes available. Just tonight a neighbor made mention that he might sell off some of his land, but it's way too soon to know anything. Are you sure you want a stream? It's not always a good thing, for they force you to stay away from it now----it can render property valueless in some ways because you can't develop it. If you do, you missed a great chance right across from me. 5 acre lots that sold for about $25,000 a few years ago. A nice stream runs through most of them. We're high and dry, but on a slight slope that leads to that stream. Secluded? View? Wooded? Logged? State your choices so I don't drive you nuts with the wrong package. Harold Sam wants a piece with a little geothermal activity. G but not too much to shake the house. John |
OT--Taking on city hall
"John" wrote in message ... Harold and Susan Vordos wrote: "PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message ... "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message ... snip---- I'll keep my eyes open. Have you given any thought to land in the general Onalaska area? I don't get south or west much, so it's a lot easier to keep watch near by. I don't have a favorite real estate agent, but I may be able to check with one and see what's available in the Winlock/Toledo area. . I'll let you know if I hear anything of substance. You're likely looking at a 5 acre minimum purchase. They're making it hard to build on anything less, thanks to the state and controlled development. There are some exceptions. Thanks, Harold--it's much appreciated.... And no, we haven't looked around up as far as Onalaska yet--last time I was in that area was several years ago...been looking at the elevations and whatnot using Google Earth, but really I need to get up there and have a drive around--along Highway 12 anywhere to the west of Mayfield Reservoir, else someplace along SR 508 just might do it. -- SVL That's much closer to home, and in general pretty nice property. Sadly, property values have escalated seriously in the past couple years, so the killer bargains are gone now. I'm still speechless that we paid only $17,500 for our 5-1/2 acres with an approved septic system. Best surprise of all was when we found out the standing alder alone was worth more than we paid for the land. I think you're more likely to find a good buy along 508 than along 12, but I'll check anything that comes available. Just tonight a neighbor made mention that he might sell off some of his land, but it's way too soon to know anything. Are you sure you want a stream? It's not always a good thing, for they force you to stay away from it now----it can render property valueless in some ways because you can't develop it. If you do, you missed a great chance right across from me. 5 acre lots that sold for about $25,000 a few years ago. A nice stream runs through most of them. We're high and dry, but on a slight slope that leads to that stream. Secluded? View? Wooded? Logged? State your choices so I don't drive you nuts with the wrong package. Harold Sam wants a piece with a little geothermal activity. G but not too much to shake the house. An 18" dia penstock and ~180 ft of head would probly do just about everything I'm lookin for.... -- SVL |
OT--(was: Taking on city hall) Top Posting
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 12:36:24 +1100, with neither quill nor qualm, Bill
Lee quickly quoth: --snip-- At the end of the day, it's about communication. If you can save one reader a few seconds, then you have saved hundreds if not thousands the same time - it all adds up. And they will thank you for it: not necessarily by overt actions, but in the overall impression that your postings make on them ("Win Friends and Influence People"). That is why bottom posting after appropriate quoting has been found over the years to be the best quoting method. Good post, Bill. Bottom or interstitial posting is the way to go. short quote of crucial text from original message new text quoted text new text, etc. ================================================== ======= The Titanic. The Hindenburg. + http://www.diversify.com The Clintons. + Website & Graphic Design ================================================== ======= |
OT--(was: Taking on city hall) Top Posting
Larry and Bill,
You both are right. Your opinions are predicated on the willingness of folks to delete everything not necessary to keep the new post in context. Here in the real world that isn't the case and for that reason I'm sure many of us will prefer the new posts at the top. If you are having problems with context it should be you to do the simple scrolling, enough to establish context and no more. Insulting top posters needlessly isn't productive. One thing to remember... on usenet you guys have no rank to pull! George Willer At the end of the day, it's about communication. If you can save one reader a few seconds, then you have saved hundreds if not thousands the same time - it all adds up. And they will thank you for it: not necessarily by overt actions, but in the overall impression that your postings make on them ("Win Friends and Influence People"). That is why bottom posting after appropriate quoting has been found over the years to be the best quoting method. Good post, Bill. Bottom or interstitial posting is the way to go. short quote of crucial text from original message new text quoted text new text, etc. ================================================== ======= The Titanic. The Hindenburg. + http://www.diversify.com The Clintons. + Website & Graphic Design ================================================== ======= |
OT--Taking on city hall
Not much to do, ey? Got too much time on your hands? Got a sad empty life?
(top posted for your convenience) steve ;-) "Bill Lee" wrote in message ... In article 0GZlf.1118$Ev.505@fed1read06, "SteveB" wrote: I find that there is so much BS that the whole conversation can be clipped, and just a reply inserted. What BS is this: City Hall, Tractor-reconditioning, or Top Posters? I can't tell since I think I have marked the posting that you are responding to as 'Read' (or maybe not - I can't tell from your posting if I have read it or have yet to read it). As in this case, is there anyone out there who doesn't know what I'm saying, or what I'm responding to? I didn't think so. I have no certainty what you are responding to, but I have an idea it might be regarding Top Posting. Let me see.... 1) Showing the detailed headers in your posting. 2) Extracting the References: header. 3) Looking at the last entry on the line: 4) Opening this referred posting in a new window. Ah, I see what it is about: Dave Hinz wrote, Then your argument is with people who are too lazy to trim old content [from their posts], rather than people who put it in a normal place [at the bottom of the quoted text]. Ah, yes sarcasm=on Much clearer and faster than appropriate quoting and paraphrasing! sarcasm=off HTH Steve Well, since I didn't read your posting until some time after reading the posting you were responding to, with other posts read in between, then I would have to say: "No, your posting did not help". Bill Lee |
OT--Taking on city hall
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 18:18:46 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
"PrecisionMachinisT" quickly quoth: --94 lines snipped-- Sam wants a piece with a little geothermal activity. G but not too much to shake the house. An 18" dia penstock and ~180 ft of head would probly do just about everything I'm lookin for.... Please learn to snip your quotes, Sam. ================================================== ======= The Titanic. The Hindenburg. + http://www.diversify.com The Clintons. + Website & Graphic Design ================================================== ======= |
OT--(was: Taking on city hall) Top Posting
For what it's worth, I prefer top-posting. If I'm following a thread of interest closely enough (and if I wasn't interested, I just wouldn't follow it at all....), I don't have any problem keeping context with top-postings. What really burns my a$$ is having to scroll down thru three pages of quoted crap to see a response that is only three words long, and totally irrelevant. So top-post, or bottom post as you prefer. I 'm more liable to killfile people who bottom post, especially when they don't have enough sense to TRIM THE QUOTED CRAP to just the "needed" length. Kudos to you George :) BK On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 21:49:59 -0500, "George Willer" wrote: Larry and Bill, You both are right. Your opinions are predicated on the willingness of folks to delete everything not necessary to keep the new post in context. Here in the real world that isn't the case and for that reason I'm sure many of us will prefer the new posts at the top. If you are having problems with context it should be you to do the simple scrolling, enough to establish context and no more. Insulting top posters needlessly isn't productive. One thing to remember... on usenet you guys have no rank to pull! George Willer At the end of the day, it's about communication. If you can save one reader a few seconds, then you have saved hundreds if not thousands the same time - it all adds up. And they will thank you for it: not necessarily by overt actions, but in the overall impression that your postings make on them ("Win Friends and Influence People"). That is why bottom posting after appropriate quoting has been found over the years to be the best quoting method. Balls! If it's about communication, then the reply should come first. So sue me... BK |
OT--(was: Taking on city hall) Top Posting
In article ,
"George Willer" wrote: Your opinions are predicated on the willingness of folks to delete everything not necessary to keep the new post in context. For this reason I spent my time to write that long posting - to give the reasons why people *should* take that time to delete extraneous text in their posting before clicking on the button that says "Post". It's the same way that I would try to get everyone to travel in one of two opposing streams on a crowded sidewalk. You seem to be saying that because not all people will join either of those streams then it is OK for you to follow their example, even if you know this to be less efficient. I'm trying to say that the equivalent of a top posting rule is the arrows and line markings painted on the sidewalk. Sure you (and others) can ignore it, but we get better results if people abide by them. For Usenet there is RFC 1855 which describes how people should post to try to ensure that you get the most out of other people's postings and others get the most out of yours. Have things changed since 1995 when the RPC was written so that it is no longer relevant? Here in the real world that isn't the case and for that reason I'm sure many of us will prefer the new posts at the top. Do you actually prefer new material added to the top, or can't you be bothered with trimming out the non-relevant material that you are replying to or paraphrasing what the thread is about? Do you just read a few threads in one newsgroup, or do you participate in a number of newsgroups? The reason that I ask is that I read so many threads a day that it is impossible to remember who said exactly what without appropriate quoting. Would you prefer everyone just posted replies without context? Does your newsreader thread articles so that "just replies" is viable on your computer? These are real questions: I am interested in your responses. Like I said in my longer posting: I top post in some email messages, because it is appropriate there. I post inline replies in Usenet because it is appropriate here. When I read a newsgroup, the message disappears from my list of articles after being read and the newsgroup window is closed, so I usually can't see articles read yesterday or last week (nor would I want them still listed). Thus I lose context of your reply if you just put your reply as the only content of a reply. If the article you are replying to has not yet reached my Usenet server, but your reply has then I have no idea of what you are replying to unless you dump the original in your reply. Even then I'm not sure, since you may have edited out relevant sections of that posting that provide a complete record of the original poster. Since the posting is yet to come, then I'll have to read the original later when it does arrive at my server. I notice that you (Larry) are using Outlook Express - I don't have that so I fired up a copy of Entourage (Mac) to see what the experience of reading Usenet was like "the Microsoft Way". If your Outlook Express is like Entourage, then you have my sympathy. I note that it does, by default, put the cursor at the top of your reply by default, so I can understand why a newcomer to Usenet might think that it operates the same way that email does (since it is presented that way). If you are having problems with context it should be you to do the simple scrolling, enough to establish context and no more. As I said, I think it is the responsibility of a poster to minimise the work that their intended reader should go through to understand their message in the right context. If you say that I should start scrolling through an entire message to see how your reply relates to the previous one, then that is sometimes just too hard to bother with and fraught with misinterpretation. What if I think the sentence or point that you are making is in response to a different part of the message that you are responding to? If there are two questions posed in an article, and you answered one of them, is someone able to tell from your reply which one you've responded to? Dumping someone else's quoted posting is (to me) lazy and implies that someone have spent little time on this posting, and thus a greater chance that their arguments or information is not as well thought out as it could be. Just like a posting full of language like, "any1 can u use a 4in 3jaw chuk on a S'bend lath i need toknow the answer tonite so any1 can help tell me" (made up example), makes me much less likely to answer this poster, even though I might have the answer they need. If it's too much bother to organise your own thoughts in an easy to understand way, then it's too much bother for me to give you answers you might need. Insulting top posters needlessly isn't productive. One thing to remember... on usenet you guys have no rank to pull! George Willer You are right in that we can't force anyone to do anything on Usenet (years of reading news.admin.net-abuse.email and news.admin.net-abuse.usenet has taught me that). But I have learnt that civil, considered, concise postings with good grammar and punctuation will win respect, even from the people who know without a shadow of a doubt that you are wrong and will always be wrong. In Usenet, the best you can do is to killfile someone you don't want to see postings from. If I killfile someone, I'll not announce it - they will disappear from my list of articles, sometimes to be seen again when my kill filter entry for them expires, sometimes never. If I reply to you then I think you have written something worth responding to - if I think you have nothing worthwhile to say and are likely to have nothing to say in the future then you will be killfiled. (Obviously George, you must have something I thought valuable to reply to.) If someone wants to get in my killfile, that's fine - it can accommodate as many people, subjects, NNTP-Posting-Hosts, or any other criterion that are needed to filter someone out. That's not the issue - the issue is about communication and who has to do the 'hard work'. I think many posters have very worthwhile things to say, I just disagree that they are doing it in the most effective manner. Bill Lee |
OT--Taking on city hall
"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message k.net... Harold and Susan Vordos wrote: While I normally bottom post, I'm suggesting that John & George have a case. One reason I suggest they do is that when I click on a post to respond, I find my cursor at the top of the post, ready to accept my response. Why would it be there if that isn't where I should be typing? Still, aside from this particular post, you'll find my responses at the end------with the unnecessary information typically clipped. Harold Thats strange to me because my reader puts the cursor at the bottom and I have to back up delete all the unnecessary garbage. Different readers I guess. ...lew... Likely so------as I'm discovering. To me, what I have surely must be what everyone else has, right? g I'm what could easily be considered computer illiterate. I've used only the computer that sits in front of me, so I'm not familiar with anything but Windows Me and Outlook Express. At my age, I'm damned proud that I'm able to use one at all. Top post or bottom post, makes no difference to me, but it sure as hell would be a kindness for folks to clip that which is not important when replying. Some replies are nothing short of a waste of time----doing nothing more than re-quoting that which has already been re-quoted. Sigh. One of the biggest offenders is our good friend, Gunner. Still, it's better to have to wade through the endless quotes than to not hear from him at all. Harold |
OT--Taking on city hall
"John" wrote in message ... Harold and Susan Vordos wrote: snip-- Secluded? View? Wooded? Logged? State your choices so I don't drive you nuts with the wrong package. Harold Sam wants a piece with a little geothermal activity. G but not too much to shake the house. John Hey, we're not all that far from St. Helens. If he wants that kind of activity, could be he won't need a heat source, just hook up to the crater. The seismic activity has remained below a cat 3 for months now. Sort of like rocking the cradle. g Harold |
OT--Taking on city hall
"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message ... "John" wrote in message ... Harold and Susan Vordos wrote: "PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message ... snip---- Sam wants a piece with a little geothermal activity. G but not too much to shake the house. An 18" dia penstock and ~180 ft of head would probly do just about everything I'm lookin for.... SVL With lines that run to my place? Should have enough 3 phase to go around. Harold |
OT--(was: Taking on city hall) Top Posting
In article ,
Barney-Killer wrote: For what it's worth, I prefer top-posting. If I'm following a thread of interest closely enough (and if I wasn't interested, I just wouldn't follow it at all....), I don't have any problem keeping context with top-postings. And if you're not following closely enough do you prefer inline posting? I note that you are using Forte's Agent to read your newsgroups: it does a great job of threading articles, but it still can't help you if an article has not propagated to your news server yet the reply to it already has. How then do you keep track of context? Could you allocate the colour of quoted text to another colour than the default blue? I have my quoted text showing as a mid-grey colour (new text is black) so it is instantly obvious about what is old and what is new text, yet still very readable. Either way, both you and I don't have to read the quoted text, but can read the reply and the quoted text is right there with the reply to give it context. I tend to graze in newsgroups, since I find that the Subject lines are often misleading, or thread drift has made them no longer relevant. As a result, I don't keep a lot in my head regarding individual threads and who said what last week, or yesterday. What really burns my a$$ is having to scroll down thru three pages of quoted crap to see a response that is only three words long, and totally irrelevant. I 'm more liable to killfile people who bottom post, especially when they don't have enough sense to TRIM THE QUOTED CRAP to just the "needed" length. I don't think you'll have any disagreement from any of us that reading three pages of crap just to post a one line or phrase comment is the worst possible thing, worse than quoting nothing at all. It certainly is the thing that will have me killfile someone faster than anything else (except maybe cascades). Let's get this straw man out of the way: I don't know of anyone advocating full quoting with bottom posting. None. The only alternative of top posting is not bottom posting, it's inline posting with trimming and paraphrasing. This is not an argument of "Top Posting, Bottom Posting" - this is a false dichotomy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy. The fact that a reply may come at the end of all of the quoted text should be a coincidence, not an ideal. If Bottom Posting after full quoted text really is objectionable then the desired alternative is not Top Posting. Balls! If it's about communication, then the reply should come first. BK If the reply to an article is "Yes" then how do you know what that reply was all about, unless you know context? Not everyone reads the newsgroups often enough or pays close attention enough to the threads so that they automatically understand context based on just a reply. Great for you if you can, but if you post you should consider all the readers (or potential readers) that may not. Sometimes it's their newsreaders that prevent the communication of context that you have. Inline reply with trimmed and paraphrased text will give them that context. Bill Lee |
OT--Taking on city hall
"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message ... "John" wrote in message ... Harold and Susan Vordos wrote: snip-- Secluded? View? Wooded? Logged? State your choices so I don't drive you nuts with the wrong package. Harold Sam wants a piece with a little geothermal activity. G but not too much to shake the house. John Hey, we're not all that far from St. Helens. If he wants that kind of activity, could be he won't need a heat source, just hook up to the crater. The seismic activity has remained below a cat 3 for months now. Sort of like rocking the cradle. g Not quite, but IIRC you have hydronics heating the shop, fossil fueled--( I know I keep saying it, but one a these days we WILL get together )... === That mountain really IS a trip though...I remember when she first blew, I was in my early 20's or so.....like WTF is this crap??? Dry Snow??? g === In the meantime, suggest maybe start looking for places in which to bury poly pipe, appx ~350 feet of trenching per ton of capacity, bury the loops~5 feet deep...fossil fuels probly arent gonna get much cheaper, and what with local electric rates likely being much less dependant upon the world economy.... -- SVL |
OT--Taking on city hall
In article Rt6mf.1184$Ev.61@fed1read06,
"SteveB" wrote: Not much to do, ey? Got too much time on your hands? Got a sad empty life? Great. An Ad hominem attack. Maybe it's an attempt at humour for my analysis of your posting: I find that there is so much BS that the whole conversation can be clipped, and just a reply inserted. As in this case, is there anyone out there who doesn't know what I'm saying, or what I'm responding to? I didn't think so. I didn't know what you were referring to - since this subject thread had already devolved into three different threads regarding the original complaint about a poster's property, someone else's restored John Deere tractor, and top posting. Without context, you can guess that SteveB didn't mean that the original poster or the John Deere restorer's posts are 'BS', but can you be sure? (top posted for your convenience) steve ;-) Hmmm, I trying to decide if the smiley wink is meant to tell me that he is trying to be funny as well as taunting, or whether it is meant to moderate the 'Nyah, nyah, nyah - you can't stop me' taunt in parenthesis. Without the many cues of intonation of voice and subtle nuances of emphasis in body language, we only have someone's words to evaluate our impression of someone else. Improperly chosen words, or words entirely lacking do not help this impression. All we have on Usenet is our words and by this we will be known. I have to say that I can agree to disagree with your top posting/inline posting, but the ad hominem attack does not give me a stellar impression of SteveB. Bill Lee |
OT--Taking on city hall
"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message ... snip----- In the meantime, suggest maybe start looking for places in which to bury poly pipe, appx ~350 feet of trenching per ton of capacity, bury the loops~5 feet deep...fossil fuels probly arent gonna get much cheaper, and what with local electric rates likely being much less dependant upon the world economy.... SVL Yep! Love the heating system, hate the oil and cost. Talked to a distributor today and was quoted $2.26/gallon, plus sales tax. With crude on the rise once again, can't see it getting much lower. I'm giving serious consideration to a supplemental wood or coal fired boiler that works in conjunction with the oil boiler. Both would run, but the oil fired boiler would just make up that which the supplemental boiler couldn't provide. I'd have to look at my time as a freebie, otherwise it's still not a bargain. I'm not convinced I want to start trenching and installing yet more equipment, although I can't rule it out. One thing sure, over $2/gallon takes the shine right out of heating with oil, if there ever was a shine. When we first filled the 1,000 gallon tank it sure looked like there was, though. Paid $0.72/gal, plus sales tax. We use maybe 800 gallons/year, but it will be more when we start heating the house (same boiler). H |
OT--Taking on city hall
wrote in message oups.com... How successful you are is going to depend a lot on how your property is zoned. Unzoned property.....this particular County being one of the few real stragglers when it comes to incorporating the comprehensive land use planning statutes that were mandated near to two decades ago. In my area a lot of properties 5 acres were rezoned from agricultural to country residential. That brought them into a bunch of regulations concerning equipment and refuse. In short everything needs to be in a building or in some cases a fenced area that blocks the view from the road or other houses. Same rule applies to commercial vehicles parked in residential area. I logged.....left bunches of the harvestable species, and with replantation there's well over the minimum requirements left for retaining status, never bothered with changing useage to residential use. Costs money to do so and tax rates are higher. If your area is being built up as residential you might be best off by building a fenced area adjacent to your shop. Often if its not visible from the road or other houses the required regulations are being met. A fence may also be cheaper than a court case. Mountainous terrain...not possible without 25 ft high fencing, sadly... Be business like in your communications. If you annoy someone sufficiently they have many perfectly legal ways to make your life difficult. "Subject 'abandoned truck with no engine' moved--replaced with newly abandoned truck that still has engine"... -- SVL |
OT--Taking on city hall
"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message ... "PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message ... snip----- In the meantime, suggest maybe start looking for places in which to bury poly pipe, appx ~350 feet of trenching per ton of capacity, bury the loops~5 feet deep...fossil fuels probly arent gonna get much cheaper, and what with local electric rates likely being much less dependant upon the world economy.... SVL Yep! Love the heating system, hate the oil and cost. Talked to a distributor today and was quoted $2.26/gallon, plus sales tax. With crude on the rise once again, can't see it getting much lower. I'm giving serious consideration to a supplemental wood or coal fired boiler that works in conjunction with the oil boiler. Both would run, but the oil fired boiler would just make up that which the supplemental boiler couldn't provide. I'd have to look at my time as a freebie, otherwise it's still not a bargain. I'm not convinced I want to start trenching and installing yet more equipment, although I can't rule it out. One thing sure, over $2/gallon takes the shine right out of heating with oil, if there ever was a shine. When we first filled the 1,000 gallon tank it sure looked like there was, though. Paid $0.72/gal, plus sales tax. We use maybe 800 gallons/year, but it will be more when we start heating the house (same boiler). Harold, Ive taken this private, since it's just mainly become just a conversation between me and you. You have mail, but it's stuck in my outbox presently--some kinda socket error. Cheers, -- SVL |
OT--Taking on city hall
"Bill Lee" wrote in message . ... snip----- . All we have on Usenet is our words and by this we will be known. I have to say that I can agree to disagree with your top posting/inline posting, but the ad hominem attack does not give me a stellar impression of SteveB. Bill Lee That's been going around of late. He now enjoys a place in my killfile, thanks to his inability to discern right from wrong. I can't help but think he'll quietly be placed in yours. Harold |
OT--Taking on city hall
"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message news:yPmdnVaqJaZisQTenZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@scnresearch. com... snip---- You have mail, but it's stuck in my outbox presently--some kinda socket error. Cheers, -- SVL Got it! H |
OT--Taking on city hall
"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message ... "PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message news:yPmdnVaqJaZisQTenZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@scnresearch. com... snip---- You have mail, but it's stuck in my outbox presently--some kinda socket error. Cheers, -- SVL Got it! Very well, now probly its time to assimilate some a the data. -- SVL |
OT--(was: Taking on city hall) Top Posting
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 22:43:14 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm,
Barney-Killer quickly quoth: For what it's worth, I prefer top-posting. Zero. Zip. Nada. ALL your posts on RCM (4) have been to OT threads anyway. If I'm following a thread of interest closely enough (and if I wasn't interested, I just wouldn't follow it at all....), I don't have any problem keeping context with top-postings. (see sig) What really burns my a$$ is having to scroll down thru three pages of quoted crap to see a response that is only three words long, and totally irrelevant. Agreed. So top-post, or bottom post as you prefer. I 'm more liable to killfile people who bottom post, especially when they don't have enough sense to TRIM THE QUOTED CRAP to just the "needed" length. Trim and interstitially reply. Posts then look like FAQs and are much more readable to everyone. On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 21:49:59 -0500, "George Willer" wrote: Larry and Bill, You both are right. Your opinions are predicated on the willingness of folks to delete everything not necessary to keep the new post in context. Here in the real world that isn't the case and for that reason I'm sure many of us will prefer the new posts at the top. If you are having problems with context it should be you to do the simple scrolling, enough to establish context and no more. Insulting top posters needlessly isn't productive. One thing to remember... on usenet you guys have no rank to pull! Needlessly? Hah! As to rank, yes we do. We can plonk all your sorry top-posting asses (as I did you awhile ago) and not have to put up with it. -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is it such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet? |
OT--Taking on city hall
Lew Hartswick wrote:
Harold and Susan Vordos wrote: While I normally bottom post, I'm suggesting that John & George have a case. One reason I suggest they do is that when I click on a post to respond, I find my cursor at the top of the post, ready to accept my response. Why would it be there if that isn't where I should be typing? Still, aside from this particular post, you'll find my responses at the end------with the unnecessary information typically clipped. Harold Thats strange to me because my reader puts the cursor at the bottom and I have to back up delete all the unnecessary garbage. Different readers I guess. ...lew... That is an option in Thunderbird |
OT--(was: Taking on city hall) Top Posting
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:12:57 +1100, with neither quill nor qualm, Bill
Lee quickly quoth: These are real questions: I am interested in your responses. Like I said in my longer posting: I top post in some email messages, because it is appropriate there. That's a bad habit to get into, Bill. I hate top-posting wherever and whenever. People who do it are almost always just too lazy to snip, and when people don't have enough compassion for the reader of their message, the reader shouldn't have enough compassion to spend the extra time to figure out what the top-poster meant to impart. (You agreed with me later in your post, which I snipped.) I post inline replies in Usenet because it is appropriate here. Inline = interstitial. It's the only logical method for multiple statements of reply. I notice that you (Larry) are using Outlook Express - I don't have that No, I'm using a purchased copy of Fortè Agent. OE is used only for email. You are right in that we can't force anyone to do anything on Usenet (years of reading news.admin.net-abuse.email and news.admin.net-abuse.usenet has taught me that). But I have learnt that civil, considered, concise postings with good grammar and punctuation will win respect, even from the people who know without a shadow of a doubt that you are wrong and will always be wrong. --snip-- That's not the issue - the issue is about communication and who has to do the 'hard work'. I think many posters have very worthwhile things to say, I just disagree that they are doing it in the most effective manner. Well stated, Bill. -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is it such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet? |
OT--(was: Taking on city hall) Top Posting
Bill,
Thank you for your lengthy reply outlining why you are convinced your view is the right one. I'm sure you may consider why others of equal rank to you are convinced that top posting is better. Your arguments are not convincing. I'll quote your latest epistle and insert my thoughts where appropriate. "Bill Lee" wrote in message ... In article , "George Willer" wrote: Your opinions are predicated on the willingness of folks to delete everything not necessary to keep the new post in context. For this reason I spent my time to write that long posting - to give the reasons why people *should* (according to Bill and Larry) take that time to delete extraneous text in their posting before clicking on the button that says "Post". It's the same way that I would try to get everyone to travel in one of two opposing streams on a crowded sidewalk. You seem to be saying that because not all people will join either of those streams then it is OK for you to follow their example, even if you know this to be less efficient. (I don't share your certainty that your way is more efficient, given the evolution that has happened in usenet habits recently) I'm trying to say that the equivalent of a top posting rule is the arrows and line markings painted on the sidewalk. Sure you (and others) can ignore it, but we get better results if people abide by them. (There are times when the posted rules no longer apply. You're trying to enforce an old rule that has outlived its' time. Your example is like insisting driving driving on the right side is always the correct way since there are places, even here in the USA where it is the wrong side.) For Usenet there is RFC 1855 which describes how people should post to try to ensure that you get the most out of other people's postings and others get the most out of yours. Have things changed since 1995 when the RPC was written so that it is no longer relevant? ( Times have certainly changed. What percentage of posters do you imagine have ever even heard of that arcane rule you quote? Of those, what percentage do you imagine agree with it? How many have been arrested for violating it?) Here in the real world that isn't the case and for that reason I'm sure many of us will prefer the new posts at the top. Do you actually prefer new material added to the top, or can't you be bothered with trimming out the non-relevant material that you are replying to or paraphrasing what the thread is about? (Yes, I and I'm sure many others DO PREFER to see replies posted at the top.) Do you just read a few threads in one newsgroup, or do you participate in a number of newsgroups? (Yes, I spend a lot of time on the internet. On usenet I read only those threads that interest me so I have time to spend on the mail lists and large bulletin boards that I moderate. That's why I object to wasting time scrolling to find what someone has to say when it could be politely added to the top.) The reason that I ask is that I read so many threads a day that it is impossible to remember who said exactly what without appropriate quoting. Would you prefer everyone just posted replies without context? (certainly not! That's when I scroll, to go deep enough to find context if I don't remember it from the post being replied to.) Does your newsreader thread articles so that "just replies" is viable on your computer? These are real questions: I am interested in your responses. Like I said in my longer posting: I top post in some email messages, because it is appropriate there. I post inline replies in Usenet because it is appropriate here. When I read a newsgroup, the message disappears from my list of articles after being read and the newsgroup window is closed, so I usually can't see articles read yesterday or last week (nor would I want them still listed). Thus I lose context of your reply if you just put your reply as the only content of a reply. (I'm using IE, so mine works the same way. On this point we agree. That's why I think top posting is better than bottom posting.) If the article you are replying to has not yet reached my Usenet server, but your reply has then I have no idea of what you are replying to unless you dump the original in your reply. Even then I'm not sure, since you may have edited out relevant sections of that posting that provide a complete record of the original poster. Since the posting is yet to come, then I'll have to read the original later when it does arrive at my server. I notice that you (Larry) are using Outlook Express - I don't have that so I fired up a copy of Entourage (Mac) to see what the experience of reading Usenet was like "the Microsoft Way". If your Outlook Express is like Entourage, then you have my sympathy. I note that it does, by default, put the cursor at the top of your reply by default, so I can understand why a newcomer to Usenet might think that it operates the same way that email does (since it is presented that way). If you are having problems with context it should be you to do the simple scrolling, enough to establish context and no more. As I said, I think it is the responsibility of a poster to minimise the work that their intended reader should go through to understand their message in the right context. If you say that I should start scrolling through an entire message to see how your reply relates to the previous one, then that is sometimes just too hard to bother with and fraught with misinterpretation. What if I think the sentence or point that you are making is in response to a different part of the message that you are responding to? If there are two questions posed in an article, and you answered one of them, is someone able to tell from your reply which one you've responded to? (I'm saying it is irresponsible to expect every reader to scroll through EVERY post all the way to the bottom to find new content.) Dumping someone else's quoted posting is (to me) lazy and implies that someone have spent little time on this posting, and thus a greater chance that their arguments or information is not as well thought out as it could be. Just like a posting full of language like, "any1 can u use a 4in 3jaw chuk on a S'bend lath i need toknow the answer tonite so any1 can help tell me" (made up example), makes me much less likely to answer this poster, even though I might have the answer they need. If it's too much bother to organise your own thoughts in an easy to understand way, then it's too much bother for me to give you answers you might need. (WOW! Now you've found something we can celebrate! I feel strongly that the quality of a poster's care used in preparing a post reflects how much consideration should be given their effort. Poorly written posts deserve the trash can. The authors often deserve plonking.) Insulting top posters needlessly isn't productive. One thing to remember... on usenet you guys have no rank to pull! George Willer You are right in that we can't force anyone to do anything on Usenet (years of reading news.admin.net-abuse.email and news.admin.net-abuse.usenet has taught me that). But I have learnt that civil, considered, concise postings with good grammar and punctuation will win respect, even from the people who know without a shadow of a doubt that you are wrong and will always be wrong. (I'm pleased we have this common ground to agree on. I tend to be a little grumpy when a post of mine is dismissed by some ruffian who is barely literate issues a proclamation that I'm wrong without even an attempt to understand what I've written. On rare occasion I'll reply in kind. I do put effort into my writing. I was past 60 when I began to type and it is still an effort. I don't have any advanced "education", but I began learning and thinking 71 years ago. However, I'll still claim my EQUAL rank on usenet as just another guy.) In Usenet, the best you can do is to killfile someone you don't want to see postings from. If I killfile someone, I'll not announce it - they will disappear from my list of articles, sometimes to be seen again when my kill filter entry for them expires, sometimes never. If I reply to you then I think you have written something worth responding to - if I think you have nothing worthwhile to say and are likely to have nothing to say in the future then you will be killfiled. (Obviously George, you must have something I thought valuable to reply to.) If someone wants to get in my killfile, that's fine - it can accommodate as many people, subjects, NNTP-Posting-Hosts, or any other criterion that are needed to filter someone out. That's not the issue - the issue is about communication and who has to do the 'hard work'. I think many posters have very worthwhile things to say, I just disagree that they are doing it in the most effective manner. Bill Lee |
OT--(was: Taking on city hall) Top Posting
Larry,
Just in case it's escaped your attention, we're equal in that respect too! George Willer Insulting top posters needlessly isn't productive. One thing to remember... on usenet you guys have no rank to pull! Needlessly? Hah! As to rank, yes we do. We can plonk all your sorry top-posting asses (as I did you awhile ago) and not have to put up with it. -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is it such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet? |
OT--(was: Taking on city hall) Top Posting
It ..... It ..... It ..... sob ..... snork ..... wheeze ......... blow
......... sniffle ....... It's just not FAIR. That everyone doesn't do everything just right. boohoo .......... sob ............. snerk ...... OMIGAWD! Steve |
OT--(was: Taking on city hall) Top Posting
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 22:43:14 -0600, Barney-Killer wrote:
For what it's worth, I prefer top-posting. If I'm following a thread of interest closely enough (and if I wasn't interested, I just wouldn't follow it at all....), I don't have any problem keeping context with top-postings. OK, but I don't know who you're answering, without scrolling down. How does that make your post make more sense? On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 21:49:59 -0500, "George Willer" wrote: Oh, it's _George's_ post you're answering. Now, let me read it. Then I can scroll way back to the top, and see what you meant, with context. Or, I could just not bother. Making your messages harder to understand is rarely a good way to communicate, in my opinion. Dave Hinz |
OT--(was: Taking on city hall) Top Posting
"Dave Hinz" wrote Or, I could just not bother. Making your messages harder to understand is rarely a good way to communicate, in my opinion. Dave Hinz Was it Yogi or Lasorda that said, "You can see a lot by observing." Steve |
OT--(was: Taking on city hall) Top Posting
Ok, it's obvious we are NOT going to get along. I suggest we split into two groups 1. rec.crafts.metalworking.topposting idiots Dave Hinz wrote: On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 22:43:14 -0600, Barney-Killer wrote: For what it's worth, I prefer top-posting. If I'm following a thread of interest closely enough (and if I wasn't interested, I just wouldn't follow it at all....), I don't have any problem keeping context with top-postings. OK, but I don't know who you're answering, without scrolling down. How does that make your post make more sense? On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 21:49:59 -0500, "George Willer" wrote: Oh, it's _George's_ post you're answering. Now, let me read it. Then I can scroll way back to the top, and see what you meant, with context. Or, I could just not bother. Making your messages harder to understand is rarely a good way to communicate, in my opinion. Dave Hinz and 2. rec.crafts.metalworking.bottomposting neanderthals. Whattaya think? |
OT--(was: Taking on city hall) Top Posting
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 13:37:38 -0600, Rex B wrote:
2. rec.crafts.metalworking.bottomposting neanderthals. Whattaya think? I think your goals don't include writing in such a way that others can easily follow, or follow-up, to your posts. plonk |
OT--(was: Taking on city hall) Top Posting
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 05:57:12 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote: On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 22:43:14 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm, Barney-Killer quickly quoth: For what it's worth, I prefer top-posting. Zero. Zip. Nada. ALL your posts on RCM (4) have been to OT threads anyway. So who the **** cares? I didn't realize YOUR life was so lame that you would even bother to count my posts, or make note of how I posted... Needlessly? Hah! As to rank, yes we do. We can plonk all your sorry top-posting asses (as I did you awhile ago) and not have to put up with it. Beat ya to it asshole... P L O N K !!!!! |
OT--(was: Taking on city hall) Top Posting
YEE HAW!! Another one bites the dust... Ker-****ing-PLONK! Bye Dave.... On 9 Dec 2005 19:40:51 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote: On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 13:37:38 -0600, Rex B wrote: 2. rec.crafts.metalworking.bottomposting neanderthals. Whattaya think? I think your goals don't include writing in such a way that others can easily follow, or follow-up, to your posts. plonk |
OT--(was: Taking on city hall) Top Posting
"George Willer" wrote in message ... snip------- I do put effort into my writing. snip--- I don't have any advanced "education", but I began learning and thinking 71 years ago. Looks like I'm in very good company. Harold |
OT--(was: Taking on city hall) Top Posting
Harold,
If we were closer I'm sure we could become very good friends! George Willer "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message ... "George Willer" wrote in message ... snip------- I do put effort into my writing. snip--- I don't have any advanced "education", but I began learning and thinking 71 years ago. Looks like I'm in very good company. Harold |
OT--(was: Taking on city hall) Top Posting
Absolutely!
When I first found out about Usenet... I watched & read for a long time before I made my first post; and during that time I picked out what I liked and didn't like about what the others were posting. Honestly, I thought bottom-posters were retards. I top-post all the time... and only here amongst the "net-nannies" has it ever been mentioned. I think probably 90% of the snowmobile newsgroup posts are top-posted... and everybody seems happy over there! LOL On the other hand, I'm anxiously waiting for the day that I have nothing better to worry about than how someone else composes their usenet posts. Hahaha! David Do you actually prefer new material added to the top, or can't you be bothered with trimming out the non-relevant material that you are replying to or paraphrasing what the thread is about? (Yes, I and I'm sure many others DO PREFER to see replies posted at the top.) |
OT--(was: Taking on city hall) Top Posting
"Rex B" wrote in message ... Ok, it's obvious we are NOT going to get along. I suggest we split into two groups 1. rec.crafts.metalworking.topposting idiots Dave Hinz wrote: On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 22:43:14 -0600, Barney-Killer wrote: For what it's worth, I prefer top-posting. If I'm following a thread of interest closely enough (and if I wasn't interested, I just wouldn't follow it at all....), I don't have any problem keeping context with top-postings. OK, but I don't know who you're answering, without scrolling down. How does that make your post make more sense? On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 21:49:59 -0500, "George Willer" wrote: Oh, it's _George's_ post you're answering. Now, let me read it. Then I can scroll way back to the top, and see what you meant, with context. Or, I could just not bother. Making your messages harder to understand is rarely a good way to communicate, in my opinion. Dave Hinz and 2. rec.crafts.metalworking.bottomposting neanderthals. Whattaya think? You missed the third group. Those with over a room temperature IQ that can keep up with whatever is going on, top or bottom posted. Just a thought, and you asked for it. Steve |
OT--(was: Taking on city hall) Top Posting
"George Willer" wrote in message ... Harold, If we were closer I'm sure we could become very good friends! George Willer I'm sure I'd welcome the opportunity. Like you, I have no formal education, but I feel I am a worthy individual that has extensive life experiences that are of interest to others, and am able to convey, in some meaningful way, bits of information that are of benefit to those that have an interest in hearing what I have to say. Like you, I started learning when I was born. Man, 66 years ago. Where does time go? Did I mention I'm very opinionated? g Harold |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:51 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter