Netiquette Guidelines

[Måç]

Are these guidelines still the ideal in this NG (or any others for that
matter)?

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt

If not, and I feel a lot of these old guidelines are out of date, what are
to reference?

I see a lot of regular posters here that don't follow the spirit of this
document. Obviously they feel the are free to follow some other "code" that
may have evolved - but is it documented?

Extracts -

A good rule of thumb: Be conservative in what you send and liberal in what
you receive. You should not send heated messages (we call these "flames")
even if you are provoked. On the other hand, you shouldn't be surprised if
you get flamed and it's prudent not to respond to flames.

If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you summarize
the original at the top of the message, or include just enough text of the
original to give a context. This will make sure readers understand when
they start to read your response. Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated
by distributing the postings from one host to another, it is possible to see
a response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context helps
everyone. But do not include the entire original!

If you should find yourself in a disagreement with one person, make your
responses to each other via mail rather than continue to send messages to
the list or the group. If you are debating a point on which the group
might have some interest, you may summarize for them later.

Avoid sending messages or posting articles which are no more than
gratuitous replies to replies.

Mac

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

Are these guidelines still the ideal in this NG (or any others for
that matter)?

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt

If not, and I feel a lot of these old guidelines are out of date,
what are to reference?

I see a lot of regular posters here that don't follow the spirit of
this document. Obviously they feel the are free to follow some other
"code" that may have evolved - but is it documented?

Extracts -

A good rule of thumb: Be conservative in what you send and liberal
in what you receive. You should not send heated messages (we call
these "flames") even if you are provoked. On the other hand, you
shouldn't be surprised if you get flamed and it's prudent not to
respond to flames.
If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
enough text of the original to give a context. This will make sure
readers understand when they start to read your response. Since
NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the postings
from one host to another, it is possible to see a response to a
message before seeing the original. Giving context helps everyone. But
do not include the entire original!
If you should find yourself in a disagreement with one person, make
your responses to each other via mail rather than continue to send
messages to the list or the group. If you are debating a point on
which the group might have some interest, you may summarize for them
later.
Avoid sending messages or posting articles which are no more than
gratuitous replies to replies.

Mac

There is no "code" which all users follow. I doubt whether 1/10 of the
users of Outlook Express have even read any guidelines for "Netiquette".
Most posters to the microsoft.public.* group of newsgroups are beginners
when it comes to computers and Usenet. They post to get answers to their
questions, not participate in a social exercise. Remember, the "guidelines"
for Netiquette are just those, voluntary guidelines, not rules or
requirements. The "guidelines" were written by human beings, not gods.

I have found that the majority of those who post to the microsoft.public.*
groups use Outlook Express or the Microsoft Web Newsreader front end as
their newsreader. Most users use Outlook Express because it was provided
with the OS. Outlook Express was not written to comply with Usenet
guidelines, so its not easy to comply with the Netiquette conventions of
Usenet when using Outlook Express, as it would be using Agent, Gravity,
XNews, or other Usenet clients.

But Usenet is evolving day by day. As more and more users become confident
enough with modifying their OSes and adding programs, they will begin using
other Usenet clients, and discover the Usenet Netiquette conventions as they
come into contact with other, more experienced, users.

By the way, some Usenet Netiquette is just common decency and polite
communication. Some of it is totally ridiculous, such as the struggle
between bottom posters and top posters.

Outlook Express users usually top-post, because that is the way Outlook
Express leads users to post. As far as I know, there is no Usenet
convention which requires either bottom-posting or top-posting. To even use
the word "require" with the word "convention" shows that one doesn't really
understand the meaning of "convention". Conventions have no "requirements",
since they are all voluntary.

 

[kurttrail]

Are these guidelines still the ideal in this NG (or any others for
that matter)?

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt

If not, and I feel a lot of these old guidelines are out of date,
what are to reference?

"This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind."

Your guidelines were bullsh*t when they were first written.

I see a lot of regular posters here that don't follow the spirit of
this document. Obviously they feel the are free to follow some other
"code" that may have evolved - but is it documented?

Anarchy is great!

"This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man." - Hamlet, Act I, Scene iii

If I'm gonna go with an out of date, non-Internet standard, but
documented guideline, I'll take Shakespeare over your nonsense.

Extracts -

A good rule of thumb: Be conservative in what you send and liberal
in what you receive.

And who, pray tell, is the final arbitor of what is conservative and
liberal?

I think I'm pretty moderate, and who the f&$k is gonna tell me I'm not?
Certainly not YOU!

You should not send heated messages (we call
these "flames") even if you are provoked.

I should send whatever I feel is appropriate to the situation. Again,
"to thine own self be true."

On the other hand, you
shouldn't be surprised if you get flamed and it's prudent not to
respond to flames.

Woe unto that moron that thinks they can flame me without getting burned
even worse themselves!

If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
enough text of the original to give a context.

Don't you dare try to rekindle the top/bottom post wars around here!
With few exceptions, most of us have learned to accept that where a
person decides to put his/her reply is up to that individual.

This will make sure
readers understand when they start to read your response.

LOL! Obviously you are to these parts! There ain't nothing you can do
to "make sure readers understand" ANYTHING! Most of the dipsh*ts on the
USENET are lucky they can understand what they have written, let alone
understand what anyone replies to them!

Since
NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the postings
from one host to another, it is possible to see a response to a
message before seeing the original. Giving context helps everyone.
But do not include the entire original!

ROFL! Who do you think you are to tell me what not to include in my
replies?! Most of my replies are just like this one, I have a comment
for every complete thought, and if I started snipping the goddamned
thing, then the "context" would be lost!

If you should find yourself in a disagreement with one person, make
your responses to each other via mail rather than continue to send
messages to the list or the group.

LOL! Are you suggesting that we start giving out are email addresses to
all the spammers of the world?!

Also, the CDO web interface to MSNEWS groups defaults to anonymous email
address! Tell MS to stop that practice!

If you are debating a point on
which the group might have some interest, you may summarize for them
later.

Blow me! What I write is for public consumption, and I have absolutely
no interest in conversing with the majority of the one trick morons
around here through email!

Avoid sending messages or posting articles which are no more than
gratuitous replies to replies.

About the only thing I agree with in your entire post! The "Me too"
posts suck!

Other than that, go take your "guidelines," ball them up in a nice big
wad, and shove them up where the sun don't shine! Little anal morons
shine neither be seen or heard!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Måç]

If I'm gonna go with an out of date, non-Internet standard, but documented

guideline, I'll take Shakespeare over your nonsense.

non-Internet standard?

And who, pray tell, is the final arbitor of what is conservative and
liberal?

You. I guess that means many things to many people - but we can only guess
that you intake more invective than you spew ;-)

I think I'm pretty moderate, and who the f&$k is gonna tell me I'm not?
Certainly not YOU!

It's not me ;-) Sally Hambridge wrote the doc up. Chill out Kurt - can you
add anything positive/conciliatory/constructive? Or is swearing the best use
of your time? Personally I don't care, but many others must be put off by
your approach

Woe unto that moron that thinks they can flame me without getting burned
even worse themselves!

As far as I can tell you just love to pick a fight.

ROFL! Who do you think you are to tell me what not to include in my
replies?! Most of my replies are just like this one, I have a comment for
every complete thought, and if I started snipping the goddamned thing,
then the "context" would be lost!

Indeed - but you failed that test in your first reply...

LOL! Are you suggesting that we start giving out are email addresses to
all the spammers of the world?!

No. But it is easy to workout the direct contact, or solicit it. On this I
agree with you, however. As I said in the OP I think these guidelines are
out of date.

I would welcome Kurts Netiquette should you get so creative...

BTW your sig is 7 lines long rather than the recommended 4 ;-)

 

[Måç]

There is no "code" which all users follow.

Indeed. So it puts the whole Netiquette idea to rest. Six feet under. I'm
cool with that. But I am fed up with some people saying there should be no
guidelines for politeness, but at the same time claiming holy ground for
their snide, purile, I-think-I-am-better-than-you, remarks.

By the way, some Usenet Netiquette is just common decency and polite
communication. Some of it is totally ridiculous, such as the struggle
between bottom posters and top posters.

I agree, but where is *this* new "Usenet Netiquette" documented?

Mac

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

Please do not send me any more email. As I indicated in my signature, I
prefer that responses to my posts be posted in the newsgroup. It would only
be polite to comply with my wishes. Usenet conventions are supposed to make
politeness easier.

 

[Måç]

Seems we both hit the wrong button... ;-)

 

[Leythos]

Anarchy is great!

I read down to this part in the response and said, This has got to be a
reply from Kurt.... Scrolled to the end and sure enough it was

Hey, the Percaset is no longer in use, side still hurts when I laugh, but
the day is good and weekend is almost here.

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

Seems we both hit the wrong button... ;-)

I did not reply to your email address mistakenly. I replied to your email
address because that is how you replied to my post. I see now that you
clicked on the wrong button. Please forgive me if I have offended you.

 

[Steve N.]

I read down to this part in the response and said, This has got to be a
reply from Kurt.... Scrolled to the end and sure enough it was

The modified subject should have been your first clue.

Hey, the Percaset is no longer in use, side still hurts when I laugh, but
the day is good and weekend is almost here.

Good. Crack open a half-rack and watch some Laurel & Hardy then.

Steve

 

[kurttrail]

non-Internet standard?

See what cutting up a post you are replying to does is take it out of
context!

"This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." -
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt

Just like the link you posted was NEVER an Internet Standard! The only
difference between my "non-Internet standard" guidelines and yours, is
that mine have been read and understood be a hell of a lot more people!

You. I guess that means many things to many people - but we can only
guess that you intake more invective than you spew ;-)

You don't know me very well, do you Elmer?

It's not me ;-) Sally Hambridge wrote the doc up.

Did she post a link and summerize it in a post to this group? Nope!
That was you.

Chill out Kurt -

There you go again! Who the F&#k are you to tell me what to do?! If I
was any more chilled, I would have a pulse but I'd still have a higher
IQ than you!

can you add anything positive/conciliatory/constructive?

What? Are you done ramming your "guidelines" up your poopshoot already?

Or is
swearing the best use of your time?

No, but I do enjoy it. Your type, the anal moralistic kind, need to
smack down right away, before you bullsh*t takes root. Just consider me
the People's Elbow of this group!

Personally I don't care, but many
others must be put off by your approach

LOL! As long as I've been posting here, let them be put off!

As far as I can tell you just love to pick a fight.

Nope, I love to end them! You are the one that is cruisin' for the
virtual bruisin'!

Indeed - but you failed that test in your first reply...

How? Explain & Quote.

No. But it is easy to workout the direct contact, or solicit it. On
this I agree with you, however. As I said in the OP I think these
guidelines are out of date.

Yeah, you were basically trolling. I understand, but my reply really
wasn't meant for you, but the group.

I would welcome Kurts Netiquette should you get so creative...

LOL! Have you got Alzheimer's? I already told you the Netiquette I
follow, but I'll repeat it for the nearly brain dead, like yourself!

"This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man." - Hamlet, Act I, Scene iii

BTW your sig is 7 lines long rather than the recommended 4 ;-)

Who did you get to count the lines for you?

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[kurttrail]

I read down to this part in the response and said, This has got to be
a reply from Kurt.... Scrolled to the end and sure enough it was

Who else is gonna say that and back it up with a Shakespeare quote?

Hey, the Percaset is no longer in use, side still hurts when I laugh,
but the day is good and weekend is almost here.

Ribs do heal slow, so don't laugh! ;-)

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[kurttrail]

The modified subject should have been your first clue.

Actually I hardly ever do that, Steve. In the thousands of my replies
in this group, I'd wager that I haven't done it more than a handful of
times.

Good. Crack open a half-rack and watch some Laurel & Hardy then.

You are cruel! <vbg>

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Steve N.]

Actually I hardly ever do that, Steve. In the thousands of my replies
in this group, I'd wager that I haven't done it more than a handful of
times.

It's not the fact that you modded it, but *how* you modded it

You are cruel! <vbg>

Nah. He's off the narcs so he can drink again and the beer will ease the
pain when he laughs and is a good muscle relaxent. Laughter is the best
medicine.

Steve

 

[Lil' Dave]

Are these guidelines still the ideal in this NG (or any others for that
matter)?

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt

If not, and I feel a lot of these old guidelines are out of date, what are
to reference?

I see a lot of regular posters here that don't follow the spirit of this
document. Obviously they feel the are free to follow some other "code" that
may have evolved - but is it documented?

Just because it has some internet site (documentation), doesn't make it
valid.

Extracts -

A good rule of thumb: Be conservative in what you send and liberal in

what

Nope, not enough information flushes out many solutions. None of which may
be accurate as enough information was not provided to describe the problem.

you receive. You should not send heated messages (we call these "flames")
even if you are provoked. On the other hand, you shouldn't be surprised if
you get flamed and it's prudent not to respond to flames.

Flamers should be dealt with by the news server maintenance personnel by
deleting those flames from the server if the flame is rude enough.

Speaking politely in provoking a flame is just as bad.

Personal attacks, rather than attacking the information, should always be
ignored.

If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you summarize
the original at the top of the message, or include just enough text of the

MS decided by default (MS OE) to put the response at the top of the response
post. So, OE users have to manually force the response at the bottom.

Responding to parts of a post, inserting the response underneath each part
as I'm doing now, is appropriate when it calls for a response to each part.
Rather than making all the response at the bottom. Its less messy for the
reader as he/she doesn't have to bounce back and forth from the top then the
bottom to understand.

original to give a context. This will make sure readers understand when
they start to read your response. Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated
by distributing the postings from one host to another, it is possible to see
a response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context helps
everyone. But do not include the entire original!

This is something abused to promote a point. Avoiding including important
information from the original post, in the respose, in order to make a point
that is not accurate to the entire context of the original post.

Rather, the respondent uses part of the original post to promote their own
agenda rather than to answer the queston or respond to the entire
information provided by the original post. This ruins the entire thread.

If you should find yourself in a disagreement with one person, make your
responses to each other via mail rather than continue to send messages to
the list or the group. If you are debating a point on which the group
might have some interest, you may summarize for them later.

So if a respondent places inaccurate information on the response, one does
not point that out for the group of readers is what this promotes. This
promotes urban legends, mis and dis information. Only the email recepient
receives the proper information.

Avoid sending messages or posting articles which are no more than
gratuitous replies to replies.

Poppycock. A simple thank you response does many things. One being that it
promotes participatiion by others that don't normally as they feel more
confident in asking questions since they know suitable solutions were
provided.

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

Just because it has some internet site (documentation), doesn't make
it valid.


Nope, not enough information flushes out many solutions. None of
which may be accurate as enough information was not provided to
describe the problem.


Flamers should be dealt with by the news server maintenance personnel
by deleting those flames from the server if the flame is rude enough.

Speaking politely in provoking a flame is just as bad.

Personal attacks, rather than attacking the information, should
always be ignored.


MS decided by default (MS OE) to put the response at the top of the
response post. So, OE users have to manually force the response at
the bottom.

Responding to parts of a post, inserting the response underneath each
part as I'm doing now, is appropriate when it calls for a response to
each part. Rather than making all the response at the bottom. Its
less messy for the reader as he/she doesn't have to bounce back and
forth from the top then the bottom to understand.


This is something abused to promote a point. Avoiding including
important information from the original post, in the respose, in
order to make a point that is not accurate to the entire context of
the original post.

Rather, the respondent uses part of the original post to promote
their own agenda rather than to answer the queston or respond to the
entire information provided by the original post. This ruins the
entire thread.


So if a respondent places inaccurate information on the response, one
does not point that out for the group of readers is what this
promotes. This promotes urban legends, mis and dis information.
Only the email recepient receives the proper information.



Poppycock. A simple thank you response does many things. One being
that it promotes participatiion by others that don't normally as they
feel more confident in asking questions since they know suitable
solutions were provided.

That is your take. Since there is no "LAW" which governs the way people
post to the Usenet, noone can say "this is the way you do it, and it must
always be done this way." After all, a "convention" only has as much force
as people let it have. If someone decides not to follow the convention, it
has no force over him. Until the Government decides to make laws
controlling speech on the Internet, that is all the force a convention will
have on anyone who decides not to follow it.

Many others think differntly. Many think that the Usenet is a wilderness
where anything may be said at any time. This comes from our American habit
of upholding the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

However, anyone who posts to the Usenet for any length of time comes to the
conclusion that politeness is better than having rights if they want to
communicate with others.

 

[kurttrail]

Donald L McDaniel wrote:

However, anyone who posts to the Usenet for any length of time comes
to the conclusion that politeness is better than having rights if
they want to communicate with others.

That is your take. My mileage varies considerably. I find that feigned
politeness to be just plain condescending, and I much rather a person
express themselves as they feel, not according to what someone else
considers to be polite.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Donald L McDaniel" <[email protected]>

||
| That is your take. Since there is no "LAW" which governs the way people
| post to the Usenet, noone can say "this is the way you do it, and it must
| always be done this way." After all, a "convention" only has as much force
| as people let it have. If someone decides not to follow the convention, it
| has no force over him. Until the Government decides to make laws
| controlling speech on the Internet, that is all the force a convention will
| have on anyone who decides not to follow it.
|
| Many others think differntly. Many think that the Usenet is a wilderness
| where anything may be said at any time. This comes from our American habit
| of upholding the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.
|
| However, anyone who posts to the Usenet for any length of time comes to the
| conclusion that politeness is better than having rights if they want to
| communicate with others.
|
| --
| Donald L McDaniel
| Please reply to the original thread,
| so that the thread may be kept intact.
| ==============================
|

After *years" of being called a Top Posting turd and other such nasty titles, I started to
use FidoLook in conjunction with OE6 to bottom post.

I find it amazing that they can deal with enmasse spammers like "R o n a l d L. G r o s s
i" but if you
Top Post you are the scum of the Earth.

I too pointed out in the RFC -- "This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any
kind."
It didn't help.

I wonder what OE7 will look like ??

 

[kurttrail]

After *years" of being called a Top Posting turd and other such nasty
titles, I started to use FidoLook in conjunction with OE6 to bottom
post.

I find it amazing that they can deal with enmasse spammers like "R o
n a l d L. G r o s s i" but if you
Top Post you are the scum of the Earth.

I too pointed out in the RFC -- "This memo does not specify an
Internet standard of any kind."
It didn't help.

I wonder what OE7 will look like ??

Like OE 6. It is my understanding that there will be little or no
change at all to OE with the introduction of IE7.

And I use OE Quotefix to make it easier to bottom-post.

A couple of years ago, we had a virtual war in this group over top vs.
bottom, and at the time I was a top poster, but I mainly argued that it
should be whatever the each poster is confortable, but a MVP who was
advocating bottom posting, but was level-headed about it, got me
thinking, and it was not too long after that, that I started bottom
posting. I still think each person should decide what right for
themselves, but that MVP has had my respect ever since, but I don't
think that their are too many that don't respect Torgeir around here.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

Donald L McDaniel wrote:



That is your take. My mileage varies considerably. I find that
feigned politeness to be just plain condescending, and I much rather
a person express themselves as they feel, not according to what
someone else considers to be polite.

You know what I think, Kurt?
If I say "Yes", you will say "No"
If I say "No", you will say "Yes"
If I say "black", you will say "white"
If I say "white", you will say "black"
et cetera ad nauseum

Having been raised in such a way that if I failed to be polite, I got cuffed
by the Old Man, I am now polite as an ingrained habit. I find now that
going against that habit is quite difficult.

I like being polite. I feel much better about myself when I am polite. I
also feel much better about others if they are polite.

If humanity went around "expressing themselves as they feel" all the time,
we would have anarchy and trouble on every side.

Politeness is the lubricant which keeps Society working together.