damian penney wrote:


Dave Balderstone wrote:
In article , Mike Marlow
wrote:

Are you having a hard time understanding how newsgroups work?

It seems so. He's either unwilling or unable to provide any context
to
his posts, which suggests he believes usenet exists only on Google.

djb

--
"Modern technology has enabled us to communicate and organize with
speed and
efficiency never before possible. People have gotten less competent
to
compensate for this." - CW


Which suggests he believes... Oh shut the hell up, I know perfectly
well how to use Usenet, used it for over a decade, context is a waste
of bandwidth when decent newsreaders display things in a threaded
format, or don't you know how to do make it do that?

Then you don't know nearly as much as you think you do. USENET is a
distributed service. All posts do not appear on all servers and sometimes
there is propagation delay so that a response arrives before the post to
which it is a response. If you knew as much about USENET as you claim then
you would be aware of this.

Now, you're likely going to come back with some crap about how it never
happened to you and anybody to whom it has happened needs to get a reliable
news provider. Well, that's nice but everyone doesn't have that kind of
choice and it does happen to a lot of people who are less fortunate than
you.

The whole Ooooo he
uses Google must be a newbie lets pounce attitude is lame, it's a
decent interface and is accessabled from anywhere. Usenet isn't email
you know.

If you think that Google is a decent interface then you again throw your
claims of vast experience into the crapper.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

damian penney wrote:

It wasn't me who started disparaging others now was it? I offered the
original poster a solution to his problem only to be pounced on because
the solution is frowned on by certain members of this group who see it
as a lesser mechanism for accessing usenet that's only used by newbies
who don't know any better. It isn't.

No, it's also used by idiots who think they can hide behind it.

With regards quoting posts, you
use Outlook Express which threads posts quite nicely, show me a client
that doesn't thread posts or allow you to find the parent if need be.
You say quoting helps, I say it doesn't.

If you don't think quoting helps then why do you do so much of it,
especially when you top-post?

news.individual.net is free and can be accessed from anywhere. There are
many free newsreaders in addition to Outlook Express. So why use a slow,
clumsy interface such as Google?

quoted material whose context has been rendered irrelevant by top-posting
snipped

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Dave Balderstone wrote:

This is top posting. Some people are rather anal about it and treat it
as an Offense Upon Creation. I find bottom posting easier to read, but
really don't care one way or the other if appropriate context AND
snipping is given/done when someone posts in a thread.

FWIW, I usually plonk people who whine about top posting on general
principle, but in this case since the idiot doing it not only top posts but
then goes on about how quoting context is a waste of bandwidth and then
includes the entire text of the post to which he is responding below his
top post I think that reaming him out is in order. And especially when he
claims to have ten years experience on USENET but doesn't know the
definition of "top posting".

In article .com,
damian penney wrote:

I assumed top posting was starting a new thread which I hadn't, what is
top posting?

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

damian penney wrote:


Actually, no. Sorry, but I don't memorize the contents of every
thread
I participate in and who is saying what to whom.


Usenet is threaded so you don't HAVE to memorize the contents of the
entire thread, replys directly reference the post that is being
responded to.


Right, so because two of us are trying to explain to you how your
posting
method interferes with people understanding _your posts_, somehow
this is
our problem. Got it. The fact that you've been on usenet for more
than
a decade isn't relevant; there were clueless newbies ten years ago
too.

Oh yes you're really trying to be ever so helpful; lets face it you
didn't like the solution I offered the original poster and jumped up on
your high horse.


Most people would have noticed, in a decade, that replying with no
context
interferes with communication.

Again, do you realise that in Usenet replies reference the post to
which they are referencing? That makes it a threaded discussion, and
the thread IS the context. I made a one line response to the original
message whose title had all the context necessary to understand what I
was referring to but because you didn't like the reply you decided to
troll.

And now you are quoting context just fine, so why are you bitching about it?

I bet you don't know that Google includes a unique identifier in your posts
that makes it easy to killfile you, do you.


--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)