Re: old pentium

From: MikeyD (m_donaghy50_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 01/21/04 

Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 18:22:08 +0000

>> >> However, on usenet we read one post after another.
>> > We certainly do not! Where do you get that idea from? For example, the
>> > post I read before this one was about mldonkey. I have no idea what
>> > you are replying to apart from what I can see quoted above.
>>
>> Okay. But myself and eveyone I've watched reading usenet will read
>> several messages from a thread in sequence before skipping to the next
>> thread.
>
> Then when they return to the same thread after reading a couple of
> hundred (or a few thousand) others, they will see an apparently isolated
> message saying "me too"! And that message may well turn up days or
> weeks later.

Yes, some of the time that will be the case. But very few people read
replies to threads more than a week old, if that. (I have actually tested
this)
>
> That's why you have to provide the context
>
> a) to let people know what you are talking about
> b) to let people know WHICH bit of context you are talking about.
>
If the message is long enough for b to apply, then it requires a reply like
this, which I tend to call bottom-posting but I'll call it interleaved or
whatever if you prefer.
>
>> > So? Why would you want to? Why would anyone want to write something
>> > which will be skipped? If they do so, then they need to learn how to
>> > write!
>
>
>> Well, my view is that probably 80% of people reading my post will
>> remember the previous one.
>
> You are wrong - I don't remember even the last post I read! I certainly
> don't recall what I read yesterday, which was several thousand posts
> back. Do you recall what was in yesterdays newspaper?

Yes, actually, I do.
>
> And even if you were right, so what? You are writing for _posterity_,
> so your post has to make sense in itself. That's why news articles
> don't say in your morning paper "continuing the theme of yesterday's
> column on this page ...". You'd get pretty annoyed if they did!

Indeed. That is a good argument for bottom-posting, and in fact the one
which finally convinced me to bottom-post. But that was not the original
argument.
>
>> I therefore expect them to skip the quote. But the quote
>> should still be there for the other 20% who need it to remind them of my
>> context.
>
> You are wrong - you misperceive the medium totally! You are probably
> unaware that it is not time-oriented, that there i sno way of knowing
> what order or when other people see your posts, or IF they see them!

I know how usenet works. However, the fact is that most modern newsreaders
group messages into threads, most readers, at least those I've surveyed,
use a threaded view and read through messages in the same thread in order,
and over 99% of the time newsreaders put threads together the right way
round regardless of what order the posts were actually recieved in.
>
>> I skip all the quote in almost every message I read.
>
> Then how on earth do you know what they are talking about?
> How on earth would you know what THIS sentence were talking about,
> if you had not read the quoted sentence that it IS talking about?
>
I saw, from the thread view, that this was in reply to a particular message
I posted yesterday, and can remember what I wrote.
>
>> It's easier if I can
>> just click
>
> Click? You use a gui, which needs something as SLOW AS A MOUSE, to read
> news!

I don't find the mouse slow. I could use keys if I wanted to, but the few
seconds it would save aren't worth it to me, when I actually prefer to use
the mouse.

>No wonder you read so little that you can "remember" "the last"
> post in "the thread". You are beyond hope - you are driving in a
> morris minor and wondering why everyone is honking at you.
>
>> on to the next message rather than having to scroll through it
>> to read the new text.
>
> Christmas! I thought gui's were supposed to HELP you! Why don't you
> just tap the space bar, like I do, to pass on down? Why do you use a
> tool that hinders you? Why don't you configure it to do what you want.
> instead of configuring it to make life hard for you?

I prefer to scroll. But my point is still valid if you use the spacebar to
page down: it's still extra work that you shouldn't be having to do.
>
>
>> > If the quote is short and contains one question and you provide one
>> > reply,
>> > then I will have no problem. But if there is more than one point in
>> > the huge quoted trailer, as is the (yecch) "norm" in such cases, then I
>> > have no idea which you are replying to!
>>
>> Very true. I agree 100% that when replying separately to multiple
>> paragraphs, you have to bottom-post.
>
> That's not "bottom posting"! No more than it's "top posting"!
>
Fine, interleaved posting then, or whatever you want to call it. It doesn't
make it any less not top posting.
>
>> > Even if the quote is short, and I can be sure what YOU are replying to,
>> > when it comes time for somebody to quote you and your reply, I will
>> > have no idea what HE is replying to, you, or the original.
>
>> Yes you will. You will probably just have read it,
>
> I most certainly will not have!
>
>> but if you haven't it's there below for you to read.
>
> I won't have any idea which part of it he is talking about. If he is
> too lazy to make himself clear, he gets dropped from my universe
> anyway!
>
Only if it's a post with multiple points. Which quite a few aren't. If the
original post was "why wasn't my mouse detected during installation" then
it's pretty clear which part he's replying to.

>> > Post 3:
>> >
>> > Was that now?
>> >> Yes please
>> >> >Would you like some tea?
>
>
>> > In other words, you yourself have no comprehension of how OTHER people
>> > might understand what you wrote, nor of the comprehension difficulties
>> > it will lead to. Desist. Do not do it.
>>
>> I don't do it, but I really think it would save people's time. I
>> certainly know it would save my time if everyone on usenet top-posted.
>
> It wouldn't. It would make all posts incomprensible. Thereby causing
> you not to understand anything, thereby wasting your time. See "Post 3"
> above as an example.
>
It's perfectly comprehensible by itself, and means that if I'm reading it as
part of a thread so I've just read the previous post then I don't waste
time scrolling down past the quote.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why so little info about Sumerians?
    ... my reading was that you were saying no papyri survive from before ... include a list of Middle Kingdom belles lettres in his <The Darker Side ... Lichtheim, I'll quote below what Lichtheim has to say; ... > Actually I am quite surprised that the Old Kingdom using papyrus at ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: Schechner - This is for you Farrow
    ... So he happens to be reading for his anthropology class and he comes across the following quote from Schechner, ... when Mr. Farrow was telling me I should read some Schechner in order to understand his argument for not messing with "classics" I wonder what he meant? ... So you're saying on the one hand that I dont know enough about the subject because I havent read enough, and then on the other saying that the writing that there is is substandard? ... I'm saying that it's dangerous to try and reinforce an argument by using a single, simple sentence excerpted from a much longer, much more complex theoretical work, and that it's dangerous - and suggestive of a lack of critical thinking on your part - to quote anything by a single academic theorist as an unassailable truth. ...
    (rec.arts.theatre.musicals)
  • Re: OLTL/Uncasting rumor
    ... only as a gentle reminder to quote back. ... One should not have to do research on a post to find out intent. ... If anyone out there is reading these posts, ... I would only suggest not regularly calling others stupid ...
    (rec.arts.tv.soaps.abc)
  • Re: Schechner - This is for you Farrow
    ... So he happens to be reading for his anthropology class and he comes across the following quote from Schechner, ... when Mr. Farrow was telling me I should read some Schechner in order to understand his argument for not messing with "classics" I wonder what he meant? ... So you're saying on the one hand that I dont know enough about the subject because I havent read enough, and then on the other saying that the writing that there is is substandard? ... I'm saying that it's dangerous to try and reinforce an argument by using a single, simple sentence excerpted from a much longer, much more complex theoretical work, and that it's dangerous - and suggestive of a lack of critical thinking on your part - to quote anything by a single academic theorist as an unassailable truth. ...
    (rec.arts.theatre.musicals)
  • Re: New to linux, Trying to Install But getting Kernal Panic Please help.
    ... A quote from that site: ... > going to scroll through other messages anyway. ... Someone reading a post should be able to start reading it without ... The problem with the world is stupidity. ...
    (alt.os.linux)