Re: old pentium

From: MikeyD (m_donaghy50_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 01/22/04

  • Next message: MikeyD: "Re: accessing linux drive" 
    Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:25:29 +0000

    P.T. Breuer wrote:

    > MikeyD <m_donaghy50@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > (of replying to old posts, I think)
    >> 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)
    >
    > How would they know? Often the same posts appear again and again. I
    > reckon I see each post at least three times, as some swerver somewhere
    > feeds in older posts beyond the range of the other servers cache
    > windows. I certainly don't look at the date! I suspect nobody does.
    >
    > You don't look at the NNTP-Posting-Date in the headers do you? I'm
    > curiouos!

    I have my threads sorted by the date of the first message in the thread. So
    does everyone I've ever seen reading news. (admittedly a small sample)
    >
    >> > 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,
    >
    >
    > All messages longer than two or three sentences are usually long
    > enough for (b) to apply.
    >
    But quite a lot of messages aren't more than two or three sentences long.

    >> > 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,
    >
    > But the messages they see are not in order. Consider what happens if
    > they read three messages in order, each alone in their thread. Then
    > three more messages arrive, one in each thread. Then they read those.
    >
    > What order have they read them in? That's right:
    >
    > 1 2 3
    > 4 5 6
    >
    >
    > And that's not the order YOU say they are reading them in! You say they
    > read them in this order:
    >
    > 1 3 5
    > 2 4 6
    >
    > and that's different from reality.
    >
    If they read usenet that frequently, that on average they see one message in
    their thread at a time, then I want whatever job they have. But the
    messages will still have been read in order in the thread, which is what I
    meant. They will have read 1 before 2, so they won't need to read the
    quoted parts of 1 which are quoted in 2, etc.
    >
    >> and over 99% of the time newsreaders put threads together the right way
    >> round regardless of what order the posts were actually recieved in.
    >
    > Nope. See above. And imagine the effect multiplied by reading many
    > threads, many news groups etc.
    >
    ??
    >
    >> >> 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.
    >
    > But what if you were not the person that I were replying to?
    >
    > Then you would not remember. The post would be meaningless.
    >
    No, because I also remember what I read yesterday.
    >
    >> >
    >> >> 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.
    >
    > But why?
    >
    Nicer in the hand, perhaps.
    >> >
    >> > 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.
    >
    > It's no work! I tap it with my right thumb. My hands don't move. Each
    > tap advances the 60 lines I can see on the page. When I am at the end
    > of the post, hitting tab with my left third finger moves me to the next
    > post. My hands definitively do not move.

    Your thumbs do. If it's that automatic that it doesn't take effort, then
    good for you, but it does take effort for me.
    >

    >> > 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.
    >
    > And what happens when somebody replies? How do I know if the person who
    > replies to the reply is replying to the reply or to the quoted
    > original, and which part of which?
    >
    > Answer: you can't, if they all top-post. That's why top-posting ruins
    > threads. Another "why" anyway!

    Not really. A post like

    That should be "4 5" with a space in between
    >put ZAxismapping="4 5" in XF86config
    >>Why doesn't my mousewheel work in x?

    is perfectly clear, and imo should be topposted. But yes, if it gets into
    paragraphs then replies should be interleaved.
    >
    >> time scrolling down past the quote.
    >
    > There is no quote to waste time scrolling past! Would you mind showing
    > me where in this post you waste time scrolling past a quote? And I am
    > posting correctly! That is, not top-posting!

    I didn't waste time scrolling through quote here because this post is long
    enough for b to apply. But in a message like
    pan.2004.01.21.20.59.46.578261@siam.com
    I wasted time scrolling through the quote because I'd just read the first
    post in the thread.

  • Next message: MikeyD: "Re: accessing linux drive"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Mythbuster: .410 in a .45-70?
      ... # <You gotta love the replies that happen because people won't quote what ... Considering all the other replies and the fact that some news servers ... it is a realy good idea to actualy quote ... the message that you are replying to. ...
      (rec.guns)
    • Re: Mythbuster: .410 in a .45-70?
      ... You gotta love the replies that happen because people won't quote what ... they're replying to. ...
      (rec.guns)
    • Re: Use of ASKMID
      ... You replies are being quoted at the same level as the pseron you're ... Make sure there's no "quote indicator" by your text when you're replying. ... Kind regards, ...
      (uk.legal)
    • Re: Mythbuster: .410 in a .45-70?
      ... ## There's a reference to killing a hog at 100 yards with a 410 shotgun, ... #Considering all the other replies and the fact that some news servers ... it is a realy good idea to actualy quote ... #the message that you are replying to. ...
      (rec.guns)
    • Re: jappanes help?
      ... I'm not saying that you don't quote, ... > can't be bothered to look up how to spell words and can't even be bothered ... And I was replying to Sean's "I'm over it ...
      (sci.lang.japan)