OT--Taking on city hall
Come on over to fuknYonkers. I'll share my 0.205 acre w/ you.
We can jointly terrorize the neighborhood. ---------------------------- Mr. P.V.'d formerly Droll Troll "PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message ... 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--(was: Taking on city hall) Top Posting
In article ,
"George Willer" wrote: I'm sure you may consider why others of equal rank to you are convinced that top posting is better. This is Usenet! Nobody has more rights than anyone else[1], and I would suggest to you that there is no such thing as a 'rank' on Usenet. Reputation and perception are what counts on Usenet, both good and bad. I'll quote your latest epistle and insert my thoughts where appropriate. George - you seem to have just agreed with me by you inserting your comments into a quoted article: an inline quoted posting. Was this a mistake? In the post that you responded to, I had said that I was giving the reasons why people should trim the text they are replying to and you said: (according to Bill and Larry) Well, it's actually Bill, Larry, RFC1855, and the general netiquette of Usenet. You saying that it is 'Bill and Larry' appears to be an attempt to paint us as the odd people out in desiring this trimming - it is not. There is even a Wikipedia article on top posting [2][4]. (I don't share your certainty that your way is more efficient, given the evolution that has happened in usenet habits recently) I'm wondering what this evolution that you mention might be. Is it: a) The Endless September[1]? b) The destruction of so many newsgroups by spammers and spamming? c) The advent of sporge? d) The advent of cancel wars? e) the move to web blogs and forums for many users, and the general demise of moderated groups? There are times when the posted rules no longer apply. You're trying to enforce an old rule that has outlived its' time. So why doesn't RFC1855 still apply? What parts are outmoded and why? Why has it not been declared obsolescent and a replacement RFC issued like so many other RFCs have? If the answer is that "I like top posting" then is this a sufficient reason to ignore these 'rules'? Is it OK for others who may disagree with other elements of Netiquette to also ignore these rules too? 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.) Could you give me a few examples where it's OK to drive on the left side of a two-way public road in the USA? What are the normal consequences of not doing so on a highway? In fact I deliberately did not choose the 'driving on the wrong side of the road' example since the consequences of driving like this are drastic and abrupt, unlike Usenet, where you will not die, become injured, or lose money because you choose not to follow RFC1855. ( Times have certainly changed. What percentage of posters do you imagine have ever even heard of that arcane rule you quote? What percentage of posters know all the local, county, state and federal laws they have to abide by? Is this ever treated as an excuse in law? Considering that RFC1855 "Netiquette" is recommended for all people who post articles, it's not quite a set of 'arcane' rules, is it. Did you know that Comcast and Earthlink, some of the largest ISP's in the USA mentions abiding by Netiquette and give examples in their FAQs for Internet usage. Of those, what percentage do you imagine agree with it? How many have been arrested for violating it? I have no idea, just as you have no idea of how many people agree with all the laws you are subject to where you live. At the moment, no one I know has been arrested for ignoring RFC1855. Some people have lost posting privileges on certain servers for having done so - so its a minor form of Usenet death. Just because they don't know any better does not make it right (IMHO). Didn't your parents ever say to you, "If all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you jump off too?" (... I'm sure many others DO PREFER to see replies posted at the top.) Just like there are others who prefer to see For Sale advertisements in newsgroups whose charter specifically bans them - you may not agree with it but it may be better to abide by the conventions. Without people abiding by RFC1855, we may as well just have one massive newsgroup called usenet, where everyone posts anything they like - where there are absolutely no rules what you should post or not post. I don't think you believe that there should be no rules, I think you disagree with a subset of the ones generally recommended. On usenet I read only those threads that interest me... Which indicates you are very focussed in which threads you read and pay close attention to the evolving threads that have come from a root thread. I tend to read about 30 newsgroups and scan hundreds of articles. ... 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.) I put it to you that there are significant differences between email, web forums and Usenet. The way that messages propagate and the way they are put to the reader are different. On email, I favour top posting with appropriate trimming. On web forums with threading, I favour unquoted replies. On web forums without threading, I favour selected quotes with replies. On Usenet, it should be inline posting with trimmed and paraphrased quotes. Sometimes these general rules have to be broken, but they remain useful defaults to me. Presumably, as bulletin board moderator, there is a Netiquette associated with people posting to your bulletin boards (are these bulletin boards, or are they web forums?) If the a sizable minority decided that parts of your Netiquette rules were invalid (because "times have changed"), then would this be acceptable? Let us say that they have now decided that swearing in their messages was now OK - what would you do and what should you do? What would you do if you had no power to stop them swearing? (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.) Are you saying that you should fully quote the article you are responding to after your reply? One of the other issues I have with this is the extra bandwidth this takes up[4]. Not everyone who is going to read your postings is going to have fast broadband access, or even access to a fast usenet server. You might be OK, but it's not you you that you need to keep in mind as the target audience - it's everyone out there reading usenet. (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.) I think we can both agree that bottom posting with full quoting is the worst way of posting to Usenet. This means top posting *is* better, but my contention is that inline posting is better still. (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.) I not I'm making that argument. If you have that impression that I am, then I have not done an adequate job in my postings to tell you what I do want. Quoting an article you are responding to does not require the inclusion of all its text - the less quoted the better, as long as it provides context. A single quoted line is often adequate. (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 the Internet, no one can tell if you're a dog." - well up to the point that an entity's behaviour set is limited to that of a dog. More like, "If it walks like a duck and quack's like a duck..." [What I'm saying is that I agree with you here] I don't have any advanced "education", but I began learning and thinking 71 years ago. 71 years is an advanced education in itself. As long as you've been building on that knowledge and experience in those then it is of far greater value to me and others than someone who went from high school to PhD to get the pieces of paper without life experience and then think they know it all because of those pieces of paper. As stupid as believing that film stars' opinions on anything other than acting are automatically more valuable than yours or mine. However, I'll still claim my EQUAL rank on usenet as just another guy.) I believe reputation is what ranks us on Usenet. I would hate to be categorised as equal with some of the people I see 'contributing' to various Usenet newsgroups. I see posting on Usenet as not what is better for me, but what is likely to be reasonable to the most number of readers out there that I want to influence. As such I abide by Netiquette rules that may be detrimental to my own interests but are good for the community. Bill Lee Notes: [1] Well actually Usenet server administrators and ISPs have more rights that you and I since they can prevent posting or propagation of articles to or through their systems. [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_posting [3] http://www.albion.com/netiquette/rule4.html [4] Yes, I did read the line in that article: "Those who prefer inline replies, on the other hand, are occasionally vocal and "evangelizing" on the subject, which others can find annoying at times." mea culpa |
OT--(was: Taking on city hall) Top Posting vs. bottom posting
"Bill Lee" Snip George - you seem to have just agreed with me by you inserting your comments into a quoted article: an inline quoted posting. Was this a mistake? No, it isn't a mistake. It's a reasonable way to post on some occasions... rather than blindly bottom posting as many do. It is especially useful when used in a topic in which there are many thoughts to express. In the post that you responded to, I had said that I was giving the reasons why people should trim the text they are replying to and you said: (according to Bill and Larry) Larry is no longer here. Well, it's actually Bill, Larry, RFC1855, and the general netiquette of Usenet. You saying that it is 'Bill and Larry' appears to be an attempt to paint us as the odd people out in desiring this trimming - it is not. There is even a Wikipedia article on top posting [2][4]. I referred to you two as examples of some who imagine themselves playing the role of net cop. (I don't share your certainty that your way is more efficient, given the evolution that has happened in usenet habits recently) I'm wondering what this evolution that you mention might be. Is it: a) The Endless September[1]? b) The destruction of so many newsgroups by spammers and spamming? c) The advent of sporge? d) The advent of cancel wars? e) the move to web blogs and forums for many users, and the general demise of moderated groups? It's none of the above. It's the fact that so many bottom post one liners to long posts as to make following an otherwise interesting thread tedious. I'm sorry I haven't been able to express myself in a manner you can understand. Snip Could you give me a few examples where it's OK to drive on the left side of a two-way public road in the USA? What are the normal consequences of not doing so on a highway? In fact I deliberately did not choose the 'driving on the wrong side of the road' example since the consequences of driving like this are drastic and abrupt, unlike Usenet, where you will not die, become injured, or lose money because you choose not to follow RFC1855. It's becoming tiresome answering your questions that bring up what I never said. I never said "public road" nor "highway". An example of where the drive on the right rule does not apply is in most any quarry. The reason is that the ramps for climbing up are usually clockwise. The climbing vehicle is on the side that allows backing into a wall to stop in the event of a problem, rather than over an unprotected edge. The decending vehicle is under no such danger and therefore drives on the left. The drive on the left applies to all vehicles anywhere in the quarry. I have no idea why the ramps are so constructed. Maybe you can do a search to turn up some arcane rule to clear it up. ( Times have certainly changed. What percentage of posters do you imagine have ever even heard of that arcane rule you quote? What percentage of posters know all the local, county, state and federal laws they have to abide by? Is this ever treated as an excuse in law? Yes, it certainly is. That is, here in the real world. snip Of those, what percentage do you imagine agree with it? How many have been arrested for violating it? I have no idea, just as you have no idea of how many people agree with all the laws you are subject to where you live. At the moment, no one I know has been arrested for ignoring RFC1855. Some people have lost posting privileges on certain servers for having done so - so its a minor form of Usenet death. Just because they don't know any better does not make it right (IMHO). Didn't your parents ever say to you, "If all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you jump off too?" Top posting cannot be compared to "jumping off a cliff", since there are benefits to top posting. (... I'm sure many others DO PREFER to see replies posted at the top.) Just like there are others who prefer to see For Sale advertisements in newsgroups whose charter specifically bans them - you may not agree with it but it may be better to abide by the conventions. Without people abiding by RFC1855, we may as well just have one massive newsgroup called usenet, where everyone posts anything they like - where there are absolutely no rules what you should post or not post. I don't think you believe that there should be no rules, I think you disagree with a subset of the ones generally recommended. As a moderator I regularly delete posts that violate posted rules. Why do you imagine otherwise? On usenet I read only those threads that interest me... Which indicates you are very focussed in which threads you read and pay close attention to the evolving threads that have come from a root thread. I tend to read about 30 newsgroups and scan hundreds of articles. It's no mystery to me why you have trouble keeping posts in context. Would you like some sound advice? ... 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.) I put it to you that there are significant differences between email, web forums and Usenet. The way that messages propagate and the way they are put to the reader are different. On email, I favour top posting with appropriate trimming. On web forums with threading, I favour unquoted replies. On web forums without threading, I favour selected quotes with replies. On Usenet, it should be inline posting with trimmed and paraphrased quotes. Sometimes these general rules have to be broken, but they remain useful defaults to me. Presumably, as bulletin board moderator, there is a Netiquette associated with people posting to your bulletin boards (are these bulletin boards, or are they web forums?) If the a sizable minority decided that parts of your Netiquette rules were invalid (because "times have changed"), then would this be acceptable? Let us say that they have now decided that swearing in their messages was now OK - what would you do and what should you do? What would you do if you had no power to stop them swearing? Bill... you're grasping! Certainly you can figure out that I would ban such posters, just as I would ban those who bottom post one liners to lengthy quotes, if it were an option. (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.) Are you saying that you should fully quote the article you are responding to after your reply? No One of the other issues I have with this is the extra bandwidth this takes up[4]. Not everyone who is going to read your postings is going to have fast broadband access, or even access to a fast usenet server. You might be OK, but it's not you you that you need to keep in mind as the target audience - it's everyone out there reading usenet. Did I ever tell you I'm on a VERY slow dial up connection? I pray every day that my phone company will move up to the 21st century. You assume WAY too much... it's getting in the way of your understanding. (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.) I think we can both agree that bottom posting with full quoting is the worst way of posting to Usenet. This means top posting *is* better, but my contention is that inline posting is better still. Now you're starting to get it! (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.) I not I'm making that argument. If you have that impression that I am, then I have not done an adequate job in my postings to tell you what I do want. Quoting an article you are responding to does not require the inclusion of all its text - the less quoted the better, as long as it provides context. A single quoted line is often adequate. Why don't people write as you wish? Why is it fashionable to bash top posters? Why don't pigs whistle? (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 the Internet, no one can tell if you're a dog." - well up to the point that an entity's behaviour set is limited to that of a dog. More like, "If it walks like a duck and quack's like a duck..." [What I'm saying is that I agree with you here] I don't have any advanced "education", but I began learning and thinking 71 years ago. 71 years is an advanced education in itself. As long as you've been building on that knowledge and experience in those then it is of far greater value to me and others than someone who went from high school to PhD to get the pieces of paper without life experience and then think they know it all because of those pieces of paper. As stupid as believing that film stars' opinions on anything other than acting are automatically more valuable than yours or mine. However, I'll still claim my EQUAL rank on usenet as just another guy.) I believe reputation is what ranks us on Usenet. I would hate to be categorised as equal with some of the people I see 'contributing' to various Usenet newsgroups. You're responding to me! Do you mean me? I see posting on Usenet as not what is better for me, but what is likely to be reasonable to the most number of readers out there that I want to influence. As such I abide by Netiquette rules that may be detrimental to my own interests but are good for the community. Bill Lee snip We are in agreement on the goal, but are very much in disagreement on what can be done that is best for most readers. I've recently learned what a friend the "blocked senders" list can be. George Willer |
OT--Taking on city hall
On 6 Dec 2005 17:26:27 -0800, "Charlie Gary"
wrote: Nick Hull wrote: Snip In the good old days a rope would have worked wonders, now we have to use a backhoe ;) Yeah, it's a lot harder to find the revenuer's body if it's not hanging on the end of the lynching rope. Later, Charlie Down deep..they are really good people. Gunner "Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire. Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us) off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give them self determination under "play nice" rules. Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you for torturing the cat." Gunner |
OT--Taking on city hall
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:14:57 -0500, John
wrote: Probly gonna conduct a records search to see if the woman that is registering these complaint is in the habit of routinely causing the waste of taxpayer funds with her frivolous claims...this way the agency will at least be better able to logically deal with it should the trend continue. -- SVL Are you saying that she is a piece of envoiomental waste? John Down deep, Im sure she would be very nice. Biodegradable too. Gunner "Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire. Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us) off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give them self determination under "play nice" rules. Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you for torturing the cat." Gunner |
OT--(was: Taking on city hall) Top Posting vs. bottom posting
Couldn't you trim that monster? Wes S [snip] Couldn't you trim that monster? Wes S Pick the way you liked it. |
OT--(was: Taking on city hall) Top Posting vs. bottom posting
Certainly, Wes
Certainly, Wes Certainly Wes I'm just trying to please Bill. I did trim all that wasn't necessary. Do you object? wrote in message ... Couldn't you trim that monster? Wes S [snip] Couldn't you trim that monster? Wes S Pick the way you liked it. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:46 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter