E
elaich
No, it isn't. 95% of top posters have absolutely nothing of value to offer.
No, it isn't. 95% of top posters have absolutely nothing of value to offer.
Z
Ziggy Zagnuts
elaich said:
That is plain stupid. More than stupid.
?
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=
He explicity noted that he was /not/ doing that. He explicitly said he
was filtering to reduce the effort he has to go through.
There wasn't a question.
Sure.
R
Ron May
If it's just about a "slight style issue" I could agree with you, but
newsgroups are almost like a virtual cyber-neighborhood if you will.
The best advice to newcomers is "don't go out of your way to be
excessively annoying." If someone is asked in a polite way to try to
observe the "local customs," even though they're not enforceable, it's
best to agree to go along. Remember, it should be the newcomer's
obligation to adapt to the group instead of the other way around.
Also, it's a "slight style issue" (to use your own words) for the TOP
POSTER as well, is it not? It doesn't cost much to be amenable.
Except for an occasional reply to those who tout PAYWARE solutions in
a FREEWARE group, you won't see me criticizing a poster on a matter of
style, but once a certain annoyance level is reached and the scales
are tipped to the point that the overall value of what she or he is
contributing is outweighed by the aggravation or noise they create,
it's much better for me to silently place them on my "twit" list,
especially when it's clear they are making a conscious decision to be
irritating and argumentative.
It's a subjective choice, I admit, but I'm not talking large numbers.
Before "Dr Jai" arrived, I only had about six people (some with
multiple personas) in my ACF killfile, so a spot really has to be
earned. Unlike JC, though, I don't list names in my sig. For me the
annoyance quietly goes away, and the "plonked" person has no idea
they're being ignored. YMMV of course, but IMHO it's better that way.
E
ellis_jay
mudnurobraC noN imitigellI
http://www.typemirror.com/reverse.php
! taht tuoba yas ot evah I lla s'tahT
--
Let the unseen day be. Today is more than enough.
___Sador the carpenter to Turin
Tolkien, The Unfinished Tales
Ellis_Jay
C
chris
John Corliss said:
Wow, that's heavy.
I didn't call you a monster, maybe I called you a fundamentalist in previous
replies.
Not trying to start this useless discussion again, but you demand 100%
freeware and a great part of the readers from this newsgroup would also like
to help people with non freeware solutions.
That's why you fundamentalists could use your own 100% and nothing else
freeware newsgroup.
In such a newsgroup you don't need a persons killfilter; we just don't
subscribe 'to that newsgroup ;-).
Most of all the price of commercial software is wrong; not sometimes the
discussion in this newsgroup.
L
Lou
Ron said:
Thanks for a well written post.
Lou
B
Bob Phillips
Absolutely agree!
--
HTH
Bob Phillips
(replace xxxx in the email address with gmail if mailing direct)
--
HTH
Bob Phillips
(replace xxxx in the email address with gmail if mailing direct)
?
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=
[top-posting undone]
I thought you were joking by top-posting a "me too" without any
snipping, but I see that you really do always top-post. Amazing case
in point.
There are at least two things wrong with your sig. Maybe three or
four.
I thought you were joking by top-posting a "me too" without any
snipping, but I see that you really do always top-post. Amazing case
in point.
There are at least two things wrong with your sig. Maybe three or
four.
R
Ron May
Thanks for the compliment!
R
Ron May
With all due respect, you're off target. This is alt.comp.FREEWARE
and there is already another group, alt.comp.SHAREWARE where it would
NOT be off-topic to discuss "free to try" or "free to download"
payware solutions.
What most of the John Corliss critics find frustrating is that no
matter how you slice it, in the end, HE'S RIGHT! If someone posts a
recommendation, say, for something that is "nagware" without
mentioning that aspect, John is likely to point that out if he replies
to the post. What's wrong with that? If the sender includes a fair
warning about the program being nagware, you probably WON'T see a
critical reply from JC.
Some software I use at home came bundled with hardware. Quite a bit,
probably way more than half, is freeware. Some, like the newsreader
I'm posting with right now, fall into the shareware category. And,
yes, I have on occasion purchased commercial software outright as
recently as this month.
While what I might USE is "diverse-ware," I understand and agree it
would be off topic to RECOMMEND non-freeware in this group. I don't
see why some people find that so hard to understand.
P
-=| Paul |=-
:: [email protected]:
::
:: >>> I sure hope if you have a problem and ask a question of the group
:: >>> that the person who answers correctly doesn't top post it.
:: >>
:: >> Generally, that's not much of a concern.
:: >
:: > A non-answer.
::
:: No, it isn't. 95% of top posters have absolutely nothing of value to offer.
I don't usually bottom-post (for reasons I won't go into), but I want
to make a point here.
The original post was about filtering out bigoted messages. I was
amazed how closely my recently-constructed filter resembled Larry's:
subject: muslim | {terroris} | {hindu} | {zioni} | christian
church | abortion | allah | islam
The topic then devolved into the well-worn top- vs. bottom-posting
argument, culminating with Ziggy's incredible statement that "... 95%
of top posters have absolutely nothing of value to offer."
At first offended and shocked, I soon realized that what I want to
filter out are "contributions" by those who are narrow-minded,
resistant to knowledge and change, and unwilling to re-think their
positions, to learn and to grow.
So, thank you, Ziggy, for stimulating me to think a little more deeply
about the subject of filtering. I will now update my filter.
-- Paul
::
:: >>> I sure hope if you have a problem and ask a question of the group
:: >>> that the person who answers correctly doesn't top post it.
:: >>
:: >> Generally, that's not much of a concern.
:: >
:: > A non-answer.
::
:: No, it isn't. 95% of top posters have absolutely nothing of value to offer.
I don't usually bottom-post (for reasons I won't go into), but I want
to make a point here.
The original post was about filtering out bigoted messages. I was
amazed how closely my recently-constructed filter resembled Larry's:
subject: muslim | {terroris} | {hindu} | {zioni} | christian
church | abortion | allah | islam
The topic then devolved into the well-worn top- vs. bottom-posting
argument, culminating with Ziggy's incredible statement that "... 95%
of top posters have absolutely nothing of value to offer."
At first offended and shocked, I soon realized that what I want to
filter out are "contributions" by those who are narrow-minded,
resistant to knowledge and change, and unwilling to re-think their
positions, to learn and to grow.
So, thank you, Ziggy, for stimulating me to think a little more deeply
about the subject of filtering. I will now update my filter.
-- Paul
P
-=| Paul |=-
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 13:54:54 -0700, "Ziggy Zagnuts"
::
:: > :: > [email protected]:
:: >
:: >>>> I sure hope if you have a problem and ask a question of the group
:: >>>> that the person who answers correctly doesn't top post it.
:: >>>
:: >>> Generally, that's not much of a concern.
:: >>
:: >> A non-answer.
:: >
:: > No, it isn't. 95% of top posters have absolutely nothing of value to
:: > offer.
::
:: That is plain stupid. More than stupid.
Begging everyone's pardon, especially Ziggy's, I now see that the
offending poster was "elaich." Filter amended. -- Paul
::
:: > :: > [email protected]:
:: >
:: >>>> I sure hope if you have a problem and ask a question of the group
:: >>>> that the person who answers correctly doesn't top post it.
:: >>>
:: >>> Generally, that's not much of a concern.
:: >>
:: >> A non-answer.
:: >
:: > No, it isn't. 95% of top posters have absolutely nothing of value to
:: > offer.
::
:: That is plain stupid. More than stupid.
Begging everyone's pardon, especially Ziggy's, I now see that the
offending poster was "elaich." Filter amended. -- Paul
P
-=| Paul |=-
::
:: :: [email protected]:
:: ::
:: :: >>> I sure hope if you have a problem and ask a question of the group
:: :: >>> that the person who answers correctly doesn't top post it.
:: :: >>
:: :: >> Generally, that's not much of a concern.
:: :: >
:: :: > A non-answer.
:: ::
:: :: No, it isn't. 95% of top posters have absolutely nothing of value to offer.
::
:: I don't usually bottom-post (for reasons I won't go into), but I want
:: to make a point here.
::
:: The original post was about filtering out bigoted messages. I was
:: amazed how closely my recently-constructed filter resembled Larry's:
::
:: subject: muslim | {terroris} | {hindu} | {zioni} | christian
:: church | abortion | allah | islam
::
:: The topic then devolved into the well-worn top- vs. bottom-posting
:: argument, culminating with Ziggy's incredible statement that "... 95%
:: of top posters have absolutely nothing of value to offer."
::
:: At first offended and shocked, I soon realized that what I want to
:: filter out are "contributions" by those who are narrow-minded,
:: resistant to knowledge and change, and unwilling to re-think their
:: positions, to learn and to grow.
::
:: So, thank you, Ziggy, for stimulating me to think a little more deeply
:: about the subject of filtering. I will now update my filter.
::
:: -- Paul
Begging everyone's pardon, especially Ziggy's, I now see that the
offending poster was "elaich." Filter amended. -- Paul
:: :: [email protected]:
:: ::
:: :: >>> I sure hope if you have a problem and ask a question of the group
:: :: >>> that the person who answers correctly doesn't top post it.
:: :: >>
:: :: >> Generally, that's not much of a concern.
:: :: >
:: :: > A non-answer.
:: ::
:: :: No, it isn't. 95% of top posters have absolutely nothing of value to offer.
::
:: I don't usually bottom-post (for reasons I won't go into), but I want
:: to make a point here.
::
:: The original post was about filtering out bigoted messages. I was
:: amazed how closely my recently-constructed filter resembled Larry's:
::
:: subject: muslim | {terroris} | {hindu} | {zioni} | christian
:: church | abortion | allah | islam
::
:: The topic then devolved into the well-worn top- vs. bottom-posting
:: argument, culminating with Ziggy's incredible statement that "... 95%
:: of top posters have absolutely nothing of value to offer."
::
:: At first offended and shocked, I soon realized that what I want to
:: filter out are "contributions" by those who are narrow-minded,
:: resistant to knowledge and change, and unwilling to re-think their
:: positions, to learn and to grow.
::
:: So, thank you, Ziggy, for stimulating me to think a little more deeply
:: about the subject of filtering. I will now update my filter.
::
:: -- Paul
Begging everyone's pardon, especially Ziggy's, I now see that the
offending poster was "elaich." Filter amended. -- Paul
E
ellis_jay
ok I will. SUSAN.
I DO feel better now, thanx ever so much!!
--
Let the unseen day be. Today is more than enough.
___Sador the carpenter to Turin
Tolkien, The Unfinished Tales
Ellis_Jay
E
ellis_jay
chris said:
You lost me there buddy boy.
I thought that this was such a group!! Let me re-phrase that.... Realizing
TINW...we DO have and this is it.
--
Let the unseen day be. Today is more than enough.
___Sador the carpenter to Turin
Tolkien, The Unfinished Tales
Ellis_Jay
L
Lou
Ron said:
You are now a marked man
) Will read all your posts <bg>Lou
C
cory
FWIW: someone's sloppy editing has led you to a misattribution. "Ziggy"-=| Paul |=- said:
said nothing of the sort, in fact his resonse to your quoted line (from
"eliach") was: "That is plain stupid. More than stupid."
C
cory
-=| Paul |=- said:
Beg your pardon. I corrected you before I noted your corrections. Amazing
how these threads can deteriorate, innit?
?
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=
<http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote3.html#ss3.1> provides
another opportunity for you to learn and grow.