Watercooling enwsgroup ?

[JerrDude]

I agree with Jaf and everyone elso pro-top-posting, what IS the use in
having to re-read the first post 20 times in a 20 post thread, the
second post 19 times in a 20 post thread, etc, etc. Not only am I a
top poster, but I believe in getting rid of all that other gibberish
that comes up when I want to reply. If you've been reading the thread,
you will know that I am responding to the previous post. If, for some
reason, I am answering a post that was not directly previous to mine,
then a quote is in order to allow the reader to know who I am
responding to. Like the gentleman before me, I believe that those who
see the need to correct me and my posting, need to look deep inside
and figure out why they HAVE to correct everyone that doesn't confom
to the their (and others) standards. It's a big world with a huge
amount of different ways to do things, do you (meaning everyone who
must let it be known that we are not conforming to "netiquette")
really think we give a rats ass or are ever going to change because
you say so. I think not. Move on to more important things in the world
for pete's sack. Perhaps like how to start a watercooling newsgroup.

Oh and one more thing. I don't believe that cross-posting is
really that bad of an idea. If someone want opinions from different
people that read different boards, why not ask them all the same
thing. I highly doubt that someone who overclockes only AMD's would
actually read a newsgroup about overclocking Intel CPU's. Perhaps a WC
NG should be in order. I would thing that once it is established and
more people become aware of it, the more attendance it will get, and
hence the more people will navigate to it for answers or to pose
questions. I for one would go to a NG for WC, and only WC, if it
existed.

 

[Joltjocky]

I just hope everyone keeps driving on the right side of the road in the usa.

JoltJocky

 

[BillW]

The "good posting methodology" are stupid rules made by people with big egos
that think everyone should do as them. Bottom posting makes no sense as it
makes everyone spend half their time searching for new data or reading data
they have already read. I always have top posted and always will as that is
the most efficient way........

 

[Ben Pope]

The "good posting methodology" are stupid rules made by people with
big egos that think everyone should do as them. Bottom posting makes
no sense as it makes everyone spend half their time searching for new
data or reading data they have already read. I always have top posted
and always will as that is the most efficient way........

OK this is now completely off topic in all crossposted newsgroups.

But I guess that doesn't matter either - it's probably "more efficient" to
discuss whatever, wherever.



Incidentally if you were to use a proper newsreader or OEQuoteFix, you'd be
able to see that you do not spend time searching for new data or reading old
data as it's all colour coded. But then you have to know how to post
correctly in order for it to work efficiently.

Ben

 

[David Maynard]

First they complained I didn't know how to use the keyboard.
Now they complain because I snip.

No, I complained about you trying to change the *meaning* of what I said. It
just so happens that snipping was part of your technique in doing so.

That does it.

You, me, by the flag pole after school! <vbg>

jaf wrote:

If I had agreed with you I would have said so. I didn't. I don't.

will be

views on

I explained the misconceptions in your paranoiac rage in the portions you
snipped.


nose".

to

Hard to miss as it is precisely the attitude you've taken.

make

If you hadn't snipped my message to hell and back you might have had a

chance to

 

[David Maynard]

I agree with Jaf and everyone elso pro-top-posting, what IS the use in
having to re-read the first post 20 times in a 20 post thread, the
second post 19 times in a 20 post thread, etc, etc.

That's what trimming, not 'top posting', is about.

Not only am I a
top poster, but I believe in getting rid of all that other gibberish
that comes up when I want to reply. If you've been reading the thread,
you will know that I am responding to the previous post.

Guess what. I have no idea what 'previous message' you're replying to because I
only show unread messages and you can't click on the message IDs to thread back
in Netscape 7.

Do a google on top posting to get the rest of the answers.

<snip>

 

[David Maynard]

The "good posting methodology" are stupid rules made by people with big egos
that think everyone should do as them. Bottom posting makes no sense as it
makes everyone spend half their time searching for new data or reading data
they have already read. I always have top posted and always will as that is
the most efficient way........

And I'd bet you've never read word one about the subject.

 

[Ben Pope]

And I'd bet you've never read word one about the subject.

And you've probably not read two...

Step 1) Reply after the RELEVENT bit.

Step 2) Trim the IRRELEVENT bit.

Thats all you really need to know to post well enough.

Ben

 

[Arthur Hagen]

Step 1) Reply after the RELEVENT bit.

Step 2) Trim the IRRELEVENT bit.

Thats all you really need to know to post well enough.

Some of us wouldn't mind a third step:

Step 3) Apply a spell checker.

Regards,

 

[Ben Pope]

I was going to reply to your post, but applied step two.

Seems you had nothing relevAnt to say.

Ben

 

[David Maynard]

And you've probably not read two...

Bad bet on your part.

I was hoping to challenge the previous poster to actually read, perchance to
think, about the logic of it rather than simply knee jerk react with what he's
'always done'.

Step 1) Reply after the RELEVENT bit.

Step 2) Trim the IRRELEVENT bit.

Thats all you really need to know to post well enough.

Of course, but your description is a version of 'bottom posting' and in line
with the "good posting methodology" that the previous 'top poster' labeled as
"stupid rules made by people with big egos."

 

[Y6g11]

That's what trimming, not 'top posting', is about.

So a shoter version of the same damn post over and over is better?

 

[Ben Pope]

Ben Pope wrote:

Of course, but your description is a version of 'bottom posting' and
in line with the "good posting methodology" that the previous 'top
poster' labeled as "stupid rules made by people with big egos."

But providing you trim, all of his argument is lost.

The bit about big egos is also incorrect, since it's not about egos, it's
about standards. If he were to drive on the wrong side of the road, his
argument could hardly be "I think you have a big ego, how dare you dictate
on which side of the road I drive."

RFC 1855 gives the guidelines in paragraph 3.1.1
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html

Since it's an RFC, a large number of people have agreed to the way in which
it's done.

Personally I couldn't care less where the information is, as long as it's
clear what's being said. However, quite often you see a one-liner crammed
up against the header information from the previous post, with maybe 5 to 6
other posts inconsistently quoted, 95% of which is completely irrelevent.
And thats considered "efficient" by the deficient author.

Ben

 

[Ben Pope]

Hi Benny,

Ben, not Benny.

snipped illegible crap.

Driving on the wrong side of the road is a violation of the Law in
most countries.

Unless you can cite the International Treaty Law that requires
"Requests For Comments" to be given the full weight of law, then your
analogy and comments are irrelevant, and your logic is severely
flawed.

Oh well, thats why I hate analogies.

Anyone catching on yet?

I've already said I couldn't care less, as long as it's legible.

Something you and many others seem not to be bothered to put the time and
effort into.

If you've got something to say, but can't be bothered to make it legible
then others won't be bothered to read it.

Are YOU catching on?

Ben

 

[jaf]

Ben, not Benny.

Just because your reading comprehension skills aren't up to the task,
doesn't mean it was illegible.

All your doing is making my point for me.

 

[jaf]

The RFC's are what amounts to the official specs of

Internet.

They were rules. Then they were standards. Now they are "amount to" official
specs.

You sound like a four year old trying to explain the whereabouts of the
missing cookies.

 

[jaf]

Ben, not Benny.

Illegible?
Let us all hope your not plying your trade in any of the language
departments at Uni-Berlin.de.

Was it illegible because your reading comprehension skills are lacking?
Or was it illegible because it didn't say what you wanted it to?

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[David Maynard]

But providing you trim, all of his argument is lost.

You and I have no disagreement.

Your point about the argument being lost is precisely why I was trying to induce
the previous poster to read the various articles on the subject. They don't just
simply say 'do it this way'; they provide the reasoning, based on the most
sensible, for why it's the 'accepted' methodology by those who think about it.

The bit about big egos is also incorrect, since it's not about egos, it's
about standards. If he were to drive on the wrong side of the road, his
argument could hardly be "I think you have a big ego, how dare you dictate
on which side of the road I drive."

An argument could be made that which side of the road one drives on poses a
physical danger to others whereas posting style "doesn't hurt anyone." That, of
course, is why one is law while the other is a matter of convention and courtesy.

RFC 1855 gives the guidelines in paragraph 3.1.1
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html

Since it's an RFC, a large number of people have agreed to the way in which
it's done.

Personally I couldn't care less where the information is, as long as it's
clear what's being said.

I agree. That, after all, is the purpose of writing a message, I should think

 

[David Maynard]

Question: If proper 'net etiquette' is important, why didn't you trim the
rest of the stuff?

Because I felt it was relevant for background on what was being discussed;
which, if you had paid attention, was top vs bottom posting and not snipping
techniques.

<Stuff that SHOULD have been deleted follows:>

In your opinion.

Nope. Had to scroll to the bottom and no further (or pertinent) info.

It's 'pertinence', besides topical, is it shows how top posting gets things
stuck down here at the end of a message and your 'having' to read 'all the way
down' demonstrates that the top poster's argument of how top posting prevents
this very thing is incorrect.

I sure hope it didn't hurt your scroll finger, or strain your brain cells, to
read the 'whole thing'.

 

[David Maynard]

Hi Benny,
<insert quote>

Network Working Group S. Hambridge
Request For Comments: 1855 Intel Corp.
FYI: 28 October 1995
Category: Informational

Netiquette Guidelines

Status of This Memo

This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does NOT specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
this memo is unlimited.
<end quote.>


RFC=Request For Comments

Driving on the wrong side of the road is a violation of the Law in most
countries.

Unless you can cite the International Treaty Law that requires "Requests
For Comments" to be given the full weight of law, then your analogy and
comments are irrelevant, and your logic is severely flawed.

In the first place, no one claimed that Netiquette was 'law' of any kind. It is,
as the RFC states, a "guideline."

Secondly, the entire internet, including technology, is governed by RFCs. e.g.
all the communication protocols are RFCs, etc. The internet wouldn't work, or
even exist, if people didn't abide by the 'no International Treaty Law' RFCs; so
your huff about "RFC=Request For Comments" goes for naught.

His analogy may not have been the best but the 'flaw' is in you misusing it.
It's purpose was to deal with the 'ego' claim (which would be clear if you
hadn't snipped it out in your 'lack of relevance' tirade) and point out that
'rules', 'standards', 'guidelines', and 'laws' have reasons for being other than
the conspiracy theorist mindless knee jerk reaction of 'ego'. In the case of his
'driving on the right side of the road' analogy the reason is safety. In the
case of netiquette it's sensible posting.

Anyone catching on yet?

One can only hope.