 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue CatKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cat Forum / Cat Anecdotes / January 2006Netiquette - a rational view
Let's start out by saying that we are very open here, and not (normally) pushy about what is basically just a convention. However, since most text-based media simulate conversation, it has been the practice on Usenet, to post beneath the original text, so that people reading the followup will better see the flow of the conversation. Of course, some people complain about having to scroll down through the entire original message to see one or two lines of followup. If the replier (replicant? - grin) either trimmed the original message to just the relevant portion, or broke up the original into several original/reply sets, it would give a more natural result. And white space makes it easier to read replies. If a person replies, either on top or on bottom, it is hard to see where the original begins and the followup begins, if they blend together. Personally, I feel that the people who insist most loudly about "being allowed" to top post, are really arguing about being allowed to be lazy: they have something to say, but don't want to take the time to format it clearly. It's a lot like saying "I am more important than you, and can't be bothered with trivia". However, there is no law against laziness or top posting. There is no requirement that people bottom post. Usenet servers no longer warn that "sending this message costs tens of thousands of dollars" when you don't snip the original (yes, they really used to do that). There is nothing that says you have to present yourself clearly and rationally. If your attempts at communication are too difficult to ferret out, or the context of your reply is obscured, it is likely the reply will not be read. Hugs and Purrs, Mark  SignatureProof of Sanity Forged Upon Request > Let's start out by saying that we are very open here, and not > (normally) pushy about what is basically just a convention. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > or the context of your reply is obscured, it is likely the reply will > not be read. I don't like this post one bit, Mark. I don't like the royal "we are very open here" as if you speak for us all in your views about whether top posting is good or bad or acceptable or lazy or whether trimming should be done or not. It is not up to you to set the rules on this group. I rarely get cross but this post made me see red. Tweed [snipped my opinions on netiquette] No cluons were harmed when "Christina Websell" <spamfree@tinawebsell.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote: >I don't like this post one bit, Mark. I don't like the royal "we >are very >open here" Um, I was of the opinion that we, as a group, are generally very open about how members choose to communicate, whether any given individual agrees or not. As it stands, I am neither an editor nor royalty, but I do have a (catnip) mouse in my pocket (grin). > ...as if you speak for us all in your views about whether top >posting is good or bad or acceptable or lazy or whether trimming >should be >done or not. My apologies if I came off sounding that way, but I believe that I said that it was I who had specific, unpopular opinions on the subject, not the group. Heavens, I couldn't possibly express a singular opinion for the group - we are all too wonderfully diverse! >It is not up to you to set the rules on this group. No, it's not up to me, and I would never attempt it. While I do have certain preferences, I would much rather hear from all of you in your own ways, than to even think of pushing m ways on anyone. >I rarely get cross but this post made me see red. Again, my apologies. Hugs and Purrs, Mark SignatureProof of Sanity Forged Upon Request > [snipped my opinions on netiquette] > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Hugs and Purrs, > Mark Sorry, Mark, I was in some pain, I got a bit ratty and read it in a negative way. Please excuse me when I "go off on one" like this, it usually means I'm feeling pretty awful. I should use my drafts folder at these times. Tweed [snips] No cluons were harmed when "Christina Websell" <spamfree@tinawebsell.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote: >Sorry, Mark, I was in some pain, I got a bit ratty and read it in a > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >folder at >these times. No offense taken. I hope you are feeling much better very soon. Hugs and Purrs, Mark SignatureProof of Sanity Forged Upon Request > I don't like this post one bit, Mark. I don't like the royal "we are very > open here" as if you speak for us all in your views about whether top [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Tweed Did you read the same post I did? I thought Mark's post was very reasonable, and intend to share it with another group that is currently discussing the same issue. He made it clear that *he* was not being judgmental. Joy ...> However, since most text-based media simulate conversation, it has > been the practice on Usenet, to post beneath the original text, so > that people reading the followup will better see the flow of the > conversation. ...> If your attempts at communication are too difficult to ferret out, > or the context of your reply is obscured, it is likely the reply will > not be read. > Hugs and Purrs, > Mark Call me lazy or whatever you want, but personally, I prefer top posting. That is the usual way people I know handle ordinary emails. It gets right to the latest post, and it's not hard at all to keep straight who said what. I think the important thing is to be consistent and not mix top posting with bottom posting. The whole idea is to communicate. I don't see why it should matter which is used, as long as it doesn't interfere with the flow. Annie [snip my opinions] No cluons were harmed when "Annie Wxill" <Annie_Wxill@hotmail.com> wrote: > The whole idea is to communicate. I don't see why it >should matter which is used, as long as it doesn't interfere with >the flow. I agree. And I think we all manage to communicate, despite our differences. Hugs and Purrs, Mark SignatureProof of Sanity Forged Upon Request >...> However, since most text-based media simulate conversation, it has >> been the practice on Usenet, to post beneath the original text, so [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >That is the usual way people I know handle ordinary emails. It gets right >to the latest post, and it's not hard at all to keep straight who said what. First of all, usenet is not e-mail: the most important difference is that it is a distributed service, which means that replies can easily arrive out of order. It is only if replies are immediately associated with the material they refer to, and are in sequence with that material that they can be counted on to make sense. Another difference is that messages are not addressed to specific users, but are instead simply made available to all in a way that they can be read if and when people want to read them. People reading e-mail can usually keep track of what's going on because they are intimately involved in the exchange and are usually involved in only a few at a time - usenet readers may read *hundreds* of threads in the course of a day and can hardly be expected to keep track of all of them, or even to read all the messages in any given thread (it is common practice when seeing a new thread to read the last replies first - if top posting, or worse, mixed posting, is used in the thread, the last messages are very difficult to interpret correctly). For a heavy usenet user, it is almost impossible to keep straight who said what in what thread. Top posting was popularized by Microsoft, and that alone is enough reason to avoid it: MS almost *never* does anything the way the rest of the world has quite properly been doing it for decades. Quoting the material to which one is replying, and then following that with the reply is the standard usenet practice evolved over many years and many millions of messages, by millions of users. Microsoft didn't invent that, so it had to come up with something stupid so it could be different. >I think the important thing is to be consistent and not mix top posting with >bottom posting. The whole idea is to communicate. I don't see why it >should matter which is used, as long as it doesn't interfere with the flow. The most important thing is to make each usenet message self contained, clear, and orderly. SignatureT.E.D. (tdavis@gearbox.maem.umr.edu) > Top posting was popularized by Microsoft, and that alone is enough > reason to avoid it: MS almost *never* does anything the way the rest [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > invent that, so it had to come up with something stupid so it could be > different. LOL, that's not an unreasonable assumption, considering that MS does this with so many other things. But I think it has more to do with the advent of graphical email programs and newsreaders. In the bad old days, everybody used text-only newsreaders, which IMO are much more convenient for things like cutting and pasting. I know this, because I use tin, which runs on the Unix shell. It's very easy for me to cut and paste, and do line-by-line (or para-by-para) responses. I don't have a GUI newsreader, actually, but I do sometimes use Eudora when I need to download an attachment, and when I reply from that program, I find it a pain in the butt to do all that cutting and pasting. It just doesn't work as well when you're combining the keyboard AND the mouse. In tin, I use vi as my editor, and I've been using vi for so many years that I'm lightning fast at it and I could do the commands in my sleep. :) I just never got very good at doing the judicious-snip thing with a mouse - it's slow and tedious, and frankly, I find it much easier to just top-post. When lots of people started getting PCs and signing up for AOL and other services, they developed different conventions that were more suited to the tools they were using. I'm a throwback and I prefer the tools I "grew up" on. :) So it's pretty easy for me to observe all the old net conventions, in both email and Usenet. But as others have said, in work environments, where everyone's on, eg, an Outlook network, top-posting is the norm, and I guess that just spills over into Usenet posts. Just my $.02 Joyce > LOL, that's not an unreasonable assumption, considering that MS does > this with so many other things. But I think it has more to do with the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > find it a pain in the butt to do all that cutting and pasting. It just > doesn't work as well when you're combining the keyboard AND the mouse. I have my mouse buttons programmed so that pressing down on the scroll wheel is copy and clicking the thumb button is paste. I need a new mouse with one more button and that would be cut and it would be the perfect setup! SignatureBritta "There is no snooze button on a cat who wants breakfast." -- Unknown Check out pictures of Vino at: http://photos.yahoo.com/badwilson click on the Vino album > > Top posting was popularized by Microsoft, and that alone is enough > > reason to avoid it: MS almost *never* does anything the way the rest [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >with a mouse - it's slow and tedious, and frankly, I find it much >easier to just top-post. vi? Well, there's no accounting for taste. (Note: there is much significance in the fact that I typed "vi" in lower case, even at the beginning of a sentence.) I had a lot of resistance to GUI readers at first, but I eventually came around ... after I discovered that there are some quite usable programs available - as long as one avoids MS. I'm using Agent (partly with the keyboard and partly with the mouse) under XP at the moment, but am on the lookout for a similar program that runs under KDE or Gnome in Linux and uses a newsrc file (I need to synchronize two readers over a slow dialup link, and newsrc files are small). >When lots of people started getting PCs and signing up for AOL and >other services, they developed different conventions that were more [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >top-posting is the norm, and I guess that just spills over into Usenet >posts. I go back - in the same environment as now - to PCs as mainframe terminals (3270 emulators installed on many machines). Top posting for e-mail was simply unknown until Outlook was made the default client (this followed CC-Mail, with Eudora available only by special request (for (some) staff and faculty - students were not given a choice) and with some grumbling from most support people (except me)). SignatureT.E.D. (tdavis@gearbox.maem.umr.edu) [snips] jXwXeXrXmXoXnXt@sonic.net wrote: >>In tin, I use vi as my editor, and I've been using vi for so many >>years that I'm lightning fast at it and I could do the commands in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>with a mouse - it's slow and tedious, and frankly, I find it much >>easier to just top-post. vi does have simple cut and paste commands: the yank and put commands. Which reminds me - have you seen the vi commands coffee mug at Think Geek? No cluons were harmed when Ted Davis said: >vi? Well, there's no accounting for taste. (Note: there is much >significance in the fact that I typed "vi" in lower case, even at >the >beginning of a sentence.) The six editor (evil grin) is my favorite as well. It's great for opening suspicious Outlook messages, and is a great all-around editor. Now Multi-Edit is good too, for a graphical editor. Just don't bring up that operating system disguised as an editor (Emacs - grin). On a job interview, I once told the interviewer that I had written C# Winforms code in vi (I did not, at time, have Visual Studio, just the free .Net libraries...). The room got quiet. The interviewer asked how I managed to do that, to which I replied "With some difficulty." No cluons were harmed when Ted Davis also said: >I had a lot of resistance to GUI readers at first, but I eventually >came around ... You mean you aren't still telnet'ing into port 119? The shame (grin)! I still telnet into port 110 on my mailserver - I can look at email without tripping any worms or viruses, and can kill spam and other troublesome messages before they hit my email client. It helps to have started out when there were NO tools (grin). On my Treo (which is where I do most of my Usenet stuff), all I have is the simple editor that comes with Yanoff+. Unless I connect to my shell account with pssh. Then I can use vi, and tin... Hugs and Purrs, Mark SignatureProof of Sanity Forged Upon Request > On a job interview, I once told the interviewer that I had written C# > Winforms code in vi (I did not, at time, have Visual Studio, just the > free .Net libraries...). The room got quiet. The interviewer asked how > I managed to do that, to which I replied "With some difficulty." I always enjoy job interviews when they ask me what my favorite HTML editor is. I get some strange looks when I answer "vi". > On my Treo (which is where I do most of my Usenet stuff), all I have is > the simple editor that comes with Yanoff+. Unless I connect to my shell > account with pssh. Then I can use vi, and tin... That's my usual way. I use pssh or tussh on my Treo 600 to connect to my linux box and run elm for my e-mail and tin for my Usenet. Dan > [snips] > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > commands. Which reminds me - have you seen the vi commands coffee mug > at Think Geek? EDITOR? Egads! Especially when boasting to this group, why not admit that Real Programmers(TM) do cat >foo.html > vi does have simple cut and paste commands: the yank and put > commands. Which reminds me - have you seen the vi commands coffee mug > at Think Geek? I have one! :) A friend, who is much geekier than I am, gave it to me. In fact I even learned a few things from it. > Just don't bring > up that operating system disguised as an editor (Emacs - grin). Eww! :) > I still telnet into port 110 on my mailserver - I can look at email > without tripping any worms or viruses, and can kill spam and other > troublesome messages before they hit my email client. It helps to have > started out when there were NO tools (grin). That's one of my main justifications for doing everything on a remote shell account: no viruses. (It's not my *reason*, mind you, it's merely my justification. The reason is, I'm lazy, and if it's not broke, I'm not going to fix it!) Joyce >[snips] > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >commands. Which reminds me - have you seen the vi commands coffee mug >at Think Geek? Thankfully, no. >No cluons were harmed when Ted Davis said: >>vi? Well, there's no accounting for taste. (Note: there is much [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Now Multi-Edit is good too, for a graphical editor. Just don't bring >up that operating system disguised as an editor (Emacs - grin). Sometimes that happens by accident - I can't recall ever opening vi by accident, only once by intent. Thunderbird is exceptional for dealing with e-mail, especially with the extension that puts an icon on the reader to turn HTML rendering on/off. It does require either Windows or XWindow. >On a job interview, I once told the interviewer that I had written C# >Winforms code in vi (I did not, at time, have Visual Studio, just the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >is the simple editor that comes with Yanoff+. Unless I connect to my >shell account with pssh. Then I can use vi, and tin... I have been known to write trivial script clients using netcat, such as for XMail administration. SignatureT.E.D. (tdavis@gearbox.maem.umr.edu) > vi? Well, there's no accounting for taste. (Note: there is much > significance in the fact that I typed "vi" in lower case, even at the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > KDE or Gnome in Linux and uses a newsrc file (I need to synchronize > two readers over a slow dialup link, and newsrc files are small). I don't know if uses a newsrc file, but I personally find Pan to work pretty nicely. It runs smoothly on Windows and under Gnome on Linux. Dan >> vi? Well, there's no accounting for taste. (Note: there is much >> significance in the fact that I typed "vi" in lower case, even at the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >I don't know if uses a newsrc file, but I personally find Pan to work >pretty nicely. It runs smoothly on Windows and under Gnome on Linux. I think that was the first one I looked at - it's installed on the campus Linux machines as the default news client. I seem to recall that it doesn't use anything like a newsrc file. SignatureT.E.D. (tdavis@gearbox.maem.umr.edu) >...> However, since most text-based media simulate conversation, it has >> been the practice on Usenet, to post beneath the original text, so [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >bottom posting. The whole idea is to communicate. I don't see why it >should matter which is used, as long as it doesn't interfere with the flow. While that is a reasonable comment, top posting *always* disrupts the flow. In fact it may not matter in lots of cases because there is no flow: merely one post, one answer, and if that is all it may not matter: but top posters rarely snip, so it only doe snot matter when it is a reply ot a short post. SignatureDavid Stevenson Storypage: http://blakjak.com/sty_menu.htm Liverpool, England, UK <cat2@blakjak.com> Emails welcome Nanki Poo: SI O+W B 12 Y L+ W++ C+ I T+ A- E H++ V- F Q P+ B+ PA+ PL SC Minke: SI W+Cp B 3 Y L W+ C++ I T A- E H++ V++ F- Q- P B PA+ PL+ SC- > While that is a reasonable comment, top posting *always* disrupts the > flow. In fact it may not matter in lots of cases because there is no > flow: merely one post, one answer, and if that is all it may not matter: > but top posters rarely snip, so it only doe snot matter when it is a > reply ot a short post. haha, you said "doe snot." >"David Stevenson" <cat2@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> but top posters rarely snip, so it only doe snot matter when it is a >> reply ot a short post. >haha, you said "doe snot." I often do. I cannot type and look at the screen, and it is one of my common typing mistakes. My commonest seems to be to type 'form' whenever I mean 'from'. Of course, spellchukkas do not help with that mistake. SignatureDavid Stevenson Storypage: http://blakjak.com/sty_menu.htm Liverpool, England, UK <cat2@blakjak.com> Emails welcome Nanki Poo: SI O+W B 12 Y L+ W++ C+ I T+ A- E H++ V- F Q P+ B+ PA+ PL SC Minke: SI W+Cp B 3 Y L W+ C++ I T A- E H++ V++ F- Q- P B PA+ PL+ SC- >> but top posters rarely snip, so it only doe snot matter when it is a >> reply ot a short post. > haha, you said "doe snot." LOL!!! Joyce ...> However, since most text-based media simulate conversation, it has > been the practice on Usenet, to post beneath the original text, so > that people reading the followup will better see the flow of the > conversation. ...> If your attempts at communication are too difficult to ferret out, > or the context of your reply is obscured, it is likely the reply will > not be read. > Hugs and Purrs, > Mark Call me lazy or whatever you want, but personally, I prefer top posting. That is the usual way people I know handle ordinary emails. It gets right to the latest post, and it's not hard at all to keep straight who said what. I think the important thing is to be consistent and not mix top posting with bottom posting. The whole idea is to communicate. I don't see why it should matter which is used, as long as it doesn't interfere with the flow. Annie ========================================== I consider myself a situational poster. I try to keep things as simple as possible. How I respond on a group or mailing list depends on the group. Suz I work in a technology company that has about 1300 employees. Everybody I've ever had to email with will always leave the email they receive intact, and add what they have to say on top, just like I did. This way it's easy to scroll down the text and know what happened. Emails can have many different replies included in them so everybody puts their 2 cents on top. No fancy quoting, cutting, etc, otherwise people get confused. Also, a lot of them will only read the top lines of what they get so it must be short and to the point. See? > Let's start out by saying that we are very open here, and not > (normally) pushy about what is basically just a convention. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > -- > Proof of Sanity Forged Upon Request I top post on occasions. On two types of occasions, to be precise. If I want to make a brief comment on a fairly long post, while leaving the previous post intact, I will post at the top. This way, my comment is easily visible, but if anyone wants to refer to the original, they can do so. The other occasion is when the previous poster top-posted. As Mark said, if the post is at the bottom, it retains the impression of a conversation. Also, as Mark said, it sometimes is appropriate to respond to particular comments in a previous post, immediately after those comments. That way, nobody has to search through the previously post to find what is being commented on. As long as we (or some of us) are discussing our pet posting peeves, my biggest complaint is when messages in a thread are left intact, with some people top posting, some bottom posting, and some posting in the middle. Those, along with the ones that don't leave white space to separate messages, are the ones I'm most likely to skip. Joy SignatureJoy **Don't believe everything you think** > I work in a technology company that has about 1300 employees. Everybody > I've ever had to email with will always leave the email they receive intact, [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > -- > > Proof of Sanity Forged Upon Request [snips and injecting a little humor here] MS >As long as we (or some of us) yi >are discussing our pet Pd >posting peeves, my biggest ee >complaint is when messages eP >in a thread are left intact, vo >with some people top es >posting, some bottom It >posting, and some posting in ss >the middle. Hugs and Purrs and side-posts (grin), Mark SignatureProof of Sanity Forged Upon Request > [snips and injecting a little humor here] > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Hugs and Purrs and side-posts (grin), > Mark LOL! (now how annoying is this? But I can't top post, since Thunderbird jumps to the end of the message) SignatureMarina, Miranda and Caliban. In loving memory of Frank and Nikki. marina (dot) kurten (at) iki (dot) fi Stories and pics at http://koti.welho.com/mkurten/ Pics at http://uk.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/frankiennikki/ and http://community.webshots.com/user/frankiennikki <snip snip> >LOL! (now how annoying is this? But I can't top post, since Thunderbird >jumps to the end of the message) Whereas Free Agent - at least my copy - puts you at the top of the previous post. Course that may just be the default, with a setting somewhere that could be changed (though I just looked through the option menu and don't see it), or if I ever decide to fork over some money and get the full forte version rather than the free agent I may get a choice. SignatureSteve Touchstone, faithful servant of Sammy, Little Bit and Spot with loving memories of Rocky (RB) stouchst@JUNKsirinet.net [remove Junk for email] Home Page: http://www.sirinet.net/~stouchst/index.html Cat Pix: http://www.sirinet.net/~stouchst/animals.html ><snip snip> >>LOL! (now how annoying is this? But I can't top post, since Thunderbird [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >money and get the full forte version rather than the free agent I may >get a choice. I never heard of such a thing. Of course, it's been years since I used Free Agent, and my copy of Agent is somewhat old. There is certainly a fairly easy way to make it standard. SignatureT.E.D. (tdavis@gearbox.maem.umr.edu) >LOL! (now how annoying is this? But I can't top post, since Thunderbird >jumps to the end of the message) You can - it's the opposite (of course) of the process Outlook users have to use (unless they change the default configuration): you use Ctrl + Home; they use Ctrl + End. SignatureT.E.D. (tdavis@gearbox.maem.umr.edu) > LOL! (now how annoying is this? But I can't top post, since Thunderbird > jumps to the end of the message) You have apparently chosen that your reply begins after the quoted text, or it may nowadays be the default setting. But it is quite possible to choose otherwise too - both regarding quoting the original message and where your reply goes. It's all in T-bird's settings (Tools - Account Settings - name of your news account - Composition & Addressing). SignatureChristine in Vantaa, Finland christal63 (at) gmail (dot) com photos: http://photos.yahoo.com/christal63 photos: http://community.webshots.com/user/chkr63 >I work in a technology company that has about 1300 employees. Everybody >I've ever had to email with will always leave the email they receive intact, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >confused. Also, a lot of them will only read the top lines of what they get >so it must be short and to the point. Your message was the last one in the thread when I read the group, so I read it first - it made absolutely no sense until I scrolled down to read the included material, then had to scroll back up to reread your reply in context. usenet is *not* e-mail - it is a technically and conceptually different service. SignatureT.E.D. (tdavis@gearbox.maem.umr.edu) >I work in a technology company that has about 1300 employees. Everybody >I've ever had to email with will always leave the email they receive intact, >and add what they have to say on top, just like I did. This way it's easy >to scroll down the text and know what happened. Yes, that is the corporate practice for in-house email. It evolved at about the same time as the edit-and-bottom-post standard evolved for Usenet. In-house email systems did not suffer much from the bandwidth and storage constraints that Usenet (and its predecessors) did. In that environment, it was more important to be complete and cover your bleep than it was to save the recipient download time and money or to communicate effectively with uninvolved strangers. SignatureWayne M. > Let's start out by saying that we are very open here, and not > (normally) pushy about what is basically just a convention. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Hugs and Purrs, > Mark Thank you, Mark. This is a very good post. If you don't mind, I'm going to post it to another group, which is currently discussing the same issue. Joy All I know is that I wish the damned topic had NEVER been brought up at all. We've never brought it up before that I recall and in fact it seems that people always said this would be an ng where we wouldn't get into long diatribes over it. I don't understand WHY it was brought up and I WISH it would GO AWAY now. Karen > All I know is that I wish the damned topic had NEVER been brought up > at all. We've never brought it up before that I recall and in fact it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Karen AMEN! I totally agree. These discussions are so *lame* :-( SignatureBritta "There is no snooze button on a cat who wants breakfast." -- Unknown Check out pictures of Vino at: http://photos.yahoo.com/badwilson click on the Vino album [snip wishing it would go away] No cluons were harmed when "badwilson" <badSPAMwilson@yahoo.com> wrote: >AMEN! I totally agree. These discussions are so *lame* :-( Well, it kind of started out in the vein of "I like you, but I don't understand you as well when you mumble" (big grin). If we all agree to quit posting to this thread, it will go away, since none of us are trolls. I'll go ahead and stop now. Hugs and Purrs, Mark SignatureProof of Sanity Forged Upon Request >All I know is that I wish the damned topic had NEVER been brought up >at [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >up >and I WISH it would GO AWAY now. Actually, this is the third time that I recall. It will blow over shortly, and probably won't come up again for a couple more years. As for the word "never", when you get more than one person in a discussion, there will eventually be disagreements. On the plus side, no matter how you post, I doubt that anyone here is less loved or less welcome because of it. We all share a common love of cats in general, and our own cats in particular, and that binds us together strongly as a community. At least we don't argue about posting in Unicode vs ASCII (so far - ominous background music). Hugs and Purrs, Mark SignatureProof of Sanity Forged Upon Request <snip> > At least we don't argue about posting in Unicode vs ASCII (so far - > ominous background music). What about HTML? ;o) ....... I'll get my coat. SignatureAdrian (Owned by Snoopy and Bagheera) A House is not a home, without a cat. http://community.webshots.com/user/clowderuk >Actually, this is the third time that I recall. It will blow over >shortly, and probably won't come up again for a couple more years. In January, I celebrate eight years in RPCA. Eight years ago, when I was a naive newbie to computers and Groups, David Stevenson taught me snipping/bottom posting (among many other things) and I've been doing it since. The subject *did* come up for discussion several times, and probably will again. Your rationale is excellent, neither snobbish nor dictatorial, and I agree wholeheartedly that we welcome top or bottom posters, just so they keep talking. Love 'em all!!!!! Jeanne >All I know is that I wish the damned topic had NEVER been brought up at >all. We've never brought it up before that I recall and in fact it >seems that people always said this would be an ng where we wouldn't get >into long diatribes over it. I don't understand WHY it was brought up >and I WISH it would GO AWAY now. Really? I don't see why it's any worse than other off-topic discussions we sometimes get into here. At least I can talk knowledgeably about this one, whereas when y'all get to swapping recipes or talking about bicycling I have to keep quiet. (Why yes, I *could* keep quiet the rest of the time too -- thanks for the suggestion. <grin>) SignatureWayne M. >> All I know is that I wish the damned topic had NEVER been brought up at >> all. We've never brought it up before that I recall and in fact it [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > yes, I *could* keep quiet the rest of the time too -- thanks for > the suggestion. <grin>) It just seems to spark a lot of bad feelings it the only reason. And, personally, I've never seen the big deal about it. NO! I don't want you to keep quiet! . At least I can talk > knowledgeably about this one, whereas when y'all get to swapping > recipes or talking about bicycling I have to keep quiet. (Why > yes, I *could* keep quiet the rest of the time too -- thanks for > the suggestion. <grin>) Agreed re the recipes/bicycling discussions. Lemme know when you're ready to talk some football LOL that oughta light some blasting caps here. > Agreed re the recipes/bicycling discussions. Lemme know when > you're ready to talk some football LOL that oughta light some > blasting caps here. Football? How about them SKINS! ;) SignatureCheryl > Football? How about them SKINS! ;) Yes, I was pleased to see their victory; a worthy opponent, not a fluke. >> Football? How about them SKINS! ;) > > Yes, I was pleased to see their victory; a worthy > opponent, not a fluke. I must make a comment about watching football (or any sport, I suppose) with a TiVo. Some of the calls seemed f'd up. Sean Taylor spitting in the face of the TB player (don't know his name) was very clear in a frame-by-frame replay on the TiVo. They were so FIRED UP! And LaVar Arrington running off-sides, well, I had to watch that a couple of times and laugh with him. LOL Good game. Very emotionally charged. I hope they can keep the MO. ;) Go Joe and TEAM!!! SignatureCheryl >> Agreed re the recipes/bicycling discussions. Lemme know when >> you're ready to talk some football LOL that oughta light some >> blasting caps here. > > Football? How about them SKINS! ;) Yep. And they're coming to Seattle next weekend to get their hats handed to them! Sam, closely supervised by Mistletoe > Really? I don't see why it's any worse than other off-topic > discussions we sometimes get into here. At least I can talk > knowledgeably about this one, whereas when y'all get to swapping > recipes or talking about bicycling I have to keep quiet. (Why > yes, I *could* keep quiet the rest of the time too -- thanks for > the suggestion. <grin>) OMG, I'm not the only one lost in here? I don't bicycle, my recipes are taken from various cook books (I do attribute), and I don't know all that much about computers to the point that I'm taking baby computing class this semester. Sigh. But I do know that I love my cats and that everyone here does too. I love reading our stories, both on and off topic, care about the members of this group and think kind thoughts about them and ask the owners to purr for them, even though I rarely post that I'm doing so. Pam S. who loves you all Well said Pamela > All I know is that I wish the damned topic had NEVER been brought up at > all. We've never brought it up before that I recall and in fact it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Karen Amen. It's a really dumb issue. I thought it was a dumb issue five years ago back when some jerk on alt.cats/rphb harped on it constantly. I didn't get it then, and I still don't get it. I'm just so grateful that 99.999% of the people on rpca actually have something interesting to say, I guess I don't care where they post it. Sherry >> All I know is that I wish the damned topic had NEVER been brought up at >> all. We've never brought it up before that I recall and in fact it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Amen. It's a really dumb issue. I thought it was a dumb issue five >years ago back when some jerk on alt.cats/rphb harped on it constantly. Hi Sherry. I remember that moggy breeding "boob". He really did make a mess of things didn't he? -bonbon > I didn't get it then, and I still don't get it. >I'm just so grateful that 99.999% of the people on rpca actually have >something interesting to say, I guess I don't care where they post it. >Sherry > >Amen. It's a really dumb issue. I thought it was a dumb issue five > >years ago back when some jerk on alt.cats/rphb harped on it constantly. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -bonbon ROFL! <<<waving usenet crucifix>>> Sherry >Let's start out by saying that we are very open here, and not >(normally) pushy about what is basically just a convention. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >Hugs and Purrs, >Mark Well, here's my $1.02 worth. I used to always top-post. To me, it just seems silly to have to scroll down to read the new comments. If I read the original, I can refer to it again at the bottom if need be, but why scroll all the way through it again if I've already read it? We read left to right, not right to left. And it seems to me that having to read at the bottom is backwards. But I broke down and (for the most part) follow the bottom-posting rule (I occasionally break it because I want the person to see my response immediately at the top, or sometimes, just 'cause I *have* to be a rebel on occasion ;-) ). I personally think whatever an individual chooses is okay by me. Ginger-lyn not that picky Home Pages: http://www.spiritrealm.com/summer/ http://www.angelfire.com/folk/glsummer (homepage & cats) http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~summer/index.htm (genealogy) http://www.movieanimals.bravehost.com/ (The Violence Against Animals in Movies Website) >I personally think whatever an individual chooses is okay by me. Flamewars are what get my goat. It's only Usenet, after all. The canonical Emily Postnews also writes: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/emily-postnews/part1/ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.