I did my best to reply to "Admiral Q" clearly and complying with his preferences, while pleasing as far as possible to other readers. Sorry if I failed to make the result please you - in that case please ask him.
Please find here the same thread reposted in TOP posting - in hope to comply with what are (apparently) YOUR preferences.
Paris, Wed 6 Sep 2006 15:07:20 +0200
----- Message 11 (links are clickable) -----
From: "Leythos" <
[email protected]>
Newsgroup: news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Message: Sent: Wed 06 Sep 2006 11:44:46 GMT
Subject: Re: Here is a BOTTOM POSTING message
Actually, the message is almost impossible to read due to the lame usenet client someone is using to reply with, due to the fact that the post was not snipped, due to the fact that improperly formatted replies are just hard to read.
----- Message 10 (links are clickable) -----
From: "Michel Merlin" <
[email protected]>
Newsgroup: news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Message: news://msnews.microsoft.com/
[email protected]
Sent: Wed 6 Sep 2006 10:14:50 +0200 (08:14:50 GMT)
Subject: Here is a BOTTOM POSTING message
« you have a lot to learn »
Yes I have, I always had for 6 decades - which made me pile up some quantity of knowledge - that I try to increase continuously, by still learning more. I hope you "have a lot to learn" as well.
« hardly anyone ever reads or researches before posting, and most
haven't a clue »
Poor opinion on others often denotes poor self baggage. Said Darwin: "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" (in modern words: arrogance more often denotes ignorance than knowledge). IOW: most people spend big time searching, reading, trying, learning, thinking; little time writing; still smaller time posting; so you heard little of them. OTOH, a few spend big time posting, hence little time thinking or learning; hence they don't understand the 1st category, hence they take them for still less knowledgeable than themselves; and of course they are the most visible: the less thought, the more presence. Of which your stance seems just trying to add another proof.
« never make an assumption as you will always assume wrong »
I am sure yourself often make assumptions, and sometimes assume right - just as everyone. The only difference is most people *know and admit* they are making assumptions - with the according high probability of failure.
« top posting is also considered incorrent netique »
Amusing. I switched to Top posting from Bottom posting (that was then the most used in CompuServe) just to please automatic programmed fanatics as yourself, in the times when they were imposing *Top* posting with just the same arguments - that it was the only efficient, the only good netiquette, etc.
Anyway, who can state what is "incorrent netique"? You? a 10 self-appointed guru assembly? Correct netiquette is rather defined by *acts* than words, by *the people* than a small body, official or not. And please open your eyes and look around you, what do you see the most in emails and news posts: bottom posting? or top posting?
Meanwhile see my 2 series of 5 messages on this:
- "The Failure of Indexing - and the odd necessity of recopying parent messages" and its 4 sub-messages
http://groups.google.com/group/micr...560c6/78324db151f9b4e1?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1&hl=en
- "Top Posting better fits currrent weird situation (plain text, clickable links)" and "Bottom-Posting better if properly opening on Last Message (HTML, with internal Link to Last Message)" with their 4 sub-messages
http://groups.google.com/group/micr...ce39c/f4c61ab2403d7a24?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1&hl=en
« but even OE can be changed to bottom post, you just gotta know
where to change it »
Yes I remember OE can be set to put the included parent message above (or under) the being-composed body, but I didn't find it back right now (I never used it because I usually bottom-post only in HTML, where I can include an easy link to the Last Message). Which shows the main difference between both of us: in such case I tell the other where is the settings involved. And instead of hostily trying to force others to bend under my own preferences, I try to kindly adapt to theirs; here you can find a *really* bottom posting message - oppositely to yours (please compare messages' orders and easinesses to find and read). For me, netiquette is about being helpful, kind, useful, efficient, pleasant, easy, clear, tolerant, adaptative.
Paris, Wed 6 Sep 2006 10:14:50 +0200
----- Message 9 (links are clickable) -----
From: "Admiral Q" <Star_Fleet_Admiral_Q(No-Spam-Man)@(Can-the-Spam)hotmail.com>
Newsgroup: news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Message: news://msnews.microsoft.com/
[email protected]
Sent: Tue 5 Sep 2006 21:38:13 -0400 (Wed 6 Sep 01:38:13 GMT)
Subject: Re: Subject of Thread, Subject of Message, different interfaces to Newsgroups
I see you have a lot to learn - as hardly anyone ever reads or researches before posting, and most haven't a clue, although they try their best, on how to post the correct information to get a credible response, as they are not IT people, they are users, who surf, email, play games and have fun on the net and their computers. You also see, especially around big hotfix or service pack releases the same post being made literally hundreds of times each day, and the big point to realize, in IT, never make an assumption as you will always assume wrong.
Lastly, top posting is also considered incorrent netique, but most of us tolerate it, but even OE can be changed to bottom post, you just gotta know where to change it.
--
Star Fleet Admiral Q @ your service!
Google is your Friend!
http://www.google.com
----- Message 8 (links are clickable) -----
From: "Michel Merlin" <
[email protected]>
Newsgroup: news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Message: news://msnews.microsoft.com/
[email protected]
Sent: Tue 5 Sep 2006 18:23:30 +0200 (16:23:30 GMT)
Subject: Subject of Thread, Subject of Message, different interfaces to Newsgroups
« And I suggest the opposite. Do *not* change the subject line
of a thread. Most newsgroup participants prefer that
subject lines be left alone. »
I don't *change* the subject of a *thread*. I just *build* the subject of a *message*. And in the 1st place, what is the use of a title if it is the same on each message? Why do you think OE (or any other interface, newsreader or web) offers to build a subject, if it was to bestially and blindly repeat the previous one?
Did you bother reading my 2 posts right above yours ("Please don't divert threads" and "Carefully spell message titles...") and following their links?
Same way, when in a book (like a newsgroup) you read a given chapter (like a thread), are you expecting that each section (like a message) has the same title? Let's imagine (fictive example case built for you out of
http://fixedreference.org/simple/20040501/wikipedia/United_States_of_America):
Chap 26 - United States of America
Re: United States of America
* "America" (can be used for all of North America and South America
* "the United States"
* "USA", "the USA"
* "US", "the US"
* ............
Re: United States of America
* South of Canada
* North of Mexico
* Other parts of the United States of America are other places.
* ................
Re: United States of America
The United States started with the declaration by 13 British colonies in 1776 declaring they were free and independent states. People from many nations live in United States including .............
Re: United States of America
The federal government is explained in the Constitution. There are three branches of government. They are the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch. State governments work very much like the federal government.
Re: United States of America
The executive branch is the part of the government that makes sure laws are followed. Members of the U.S. Electoral College elect a President who is ....
Re: United States of America
The legislative branch is the part of the government that makes laws. This is the most ..........
Re: United States of America
The judicial branch is the part of government that decides what the laws mean. The judicial branch is made up of the Supreme Court and many lower courts. If the Supreme Court decides that ............
Re: United States of America
Following the European colonization of the Americas, the United States became the world's first modern democracy after its ..............
Re: United States of America
The United States of America consists of 50 states with limited autonomy in which federal law takes precedence over state law. In general, ..............
Re: United States of America
At the time of the Declaration of Independence, the United States consisted of 13 states. In the following years, this number has grown steadily due to ...............
Re: United States of America
etc, etc.............
« Many, if not most, newsgroup participants (me, for example)
do not keep already-read messages, and the original title
will not be visible whether or not threading is enabled. »
First, don't assume everyone is a "Most Vocal Poster"; many, oppositely, read, search and think before posting, thus don't post anything if they haven't read, kept, and reread as many times as requuired, the parent posts of the one to which they reply.
Second, most people even if having habits different than yours, are tolerant to others' (not sure you understand such concept), and spend all the time and pain it requires to make their posts easy to find, read and understand by anyone, including the ones with your particular habits; here, have you by chance noticed that my posts, not only reproduce the Parent Message as most others do, but make them particularly complete (up several levels, often up to the root of the thread), and particularly easy to find and read (clickable links, reformatted body)? Are you advocating that people should spend the less possible time and pain to make (or try) their posts clear and easy to read?
« Finally, the assumption that all newsgroup participants
use Outlook Express is false. »
What is false in the 1st place is the assumption you attribute me, and the (corresponding) one you are making that only OE would be able to make threaded displays of discussions. If you read carefully, you will see that my phrase (which you quoted) carefully and duly started with "OE > ...", showing that the example was in OE - thus implying the reader could be NOT in OE.
Please open your mind and start to think before posting, and everything will go smoother and kinder (and more useful) for everyone (starting with you).
Paris, Tue 5 Sep 2006 18:23:30 +0200
----- Message 7 (links are clickable) -----
From: "Ken Blake, MVP" <
[email protected]>
Newsgroup: news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Message: news://msnews.microsoft.com/%
[email protected]
Sent: Tue 5 Sep 2006 08:14:55 -0700 (15:14:55 GMT)
Subject: Re: Reselling Windows is striclty limited
Michel said:
BTW I suggest everyone, at least MVPs, take care of building
accurate titles in their messages, reflecting the particular
message, not the thread
And I suggest the opposite. Do *not* change the subject line of a thread.
Most newsgroup participants prefer that subject lines be left alone.
And if you *must* change the subject line, standard netiquette requires that
you also leave the original one in, for example, "Re: Reselling Windows is
striclty limited (was 'resell XP')"
(for the thread, there is already
"OE > View > Current View > Group Messages by Conversation").
Many, if not most, newsgroup participants (me, for example) do not keep already-read messages, and the original title will not be visible whether or not threading is enabled.
Finally, the assumption that all newsgroup participants use Outlook Express is false.
--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
----- Intermediate Message 6 (links are clickable) -----
From: "Michel Merlin" <
[email protected]>
Newsgroup: news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Message: news://msnews.microsoft.com/%
[email protected]
Sent: Tue 5 Sep 2006 14:13:00 +0200 (12:13:00 GMT)
Subject: Carefully spell message titles (i.e. "Subjects") (Re: Reselling Windows is strictly limited)
I regret my previous message, that I posted too quickly. Yes the parent had obviously no goal or effect other than diverting and attacking, yes I had been badly attacked in the days before, but this was not a reason to overreact, and above all to recall the names of people who momentarily did something bad but are usually helpful.
Please people just ignore Og's attack and my reply, and stick with the subject (as small as it is here):
- be careful when writing your message titles (usually called "Subject"), particularly for the most meaningful words, that will be searched ("sell" here);
- if someone mistyped his title, don't chastise him (as Og did), instead correct it in your reply's title (as I did).
Paris, Tue 5 Sep 2006 14:13:00 +0200
----- Message 5 (links are clickable) -----
From: "Michel Merlin" <
[email protected]>
Newsgroup: news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Message: news://msnews.microsoft.com/
[email protected]
Sent: Tue 5 Sep 2006 13:35:55 +0200 (11:35:55 GMT)
Subject: Please don't divert threads
My apologies for my mistyping of *strictly*.
Now it's dishonest to take this as a pretext (and your posturing as a fool as a tool) to poison the atmosphere and divert the thread with no reason. None will believe you are as idiot as you posture:
- you surely understand what is recalled in the "Related Message" in the "Other Thread" below
- hence you do understand that your post diverts and bloats the thread, mine didn't
- you surely understand that the only possible goal and effect of your post is to continue and emphasize the deliberate and cute attacks on me to which PA Bear and Bruce Hagen have so aptly contributed already
- you surely understand that (as opposite to yourself) I wasn't trying anything unpleasant to anyone, but only to help.
I guess (and regret) this sort of attack will continue, whether I reply or don't.
Paris, Tue 5 Sep 2006 13:35:55 +0200
----- Message 4 (links are clickable) -----
From: "Og" <
[email protected]>
Newsgroup: news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Message: news://msnews.microsoft.com/%
[email protected]
Sent: Tue 5 Sep 2006 03:25:28 -0700 (10:25:28 GMT)
Subject: Re: Reselling Windows is striclty limited
Michel Merlin:
1.) It is bad form to start a new thread in the middle of a thread.
2.) It is bad form to object to OP's spelling in the Subject
line, only to replace the Subject line with a misspelling
of your own.
Steve
----- Message 3 (links are clickable) -----
From: "Michel Merlin" <
[email protected]>
Newsgroup: news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Message: news://msnews.microsoft.com/
[email protected]
Sent: Tue 5 Sep 2006 11:53:10 +0200 (09:53:10 GMT)
Subject: Reselling Windows is striclty limited
(Making a more visible title for Ken's very informative post. Otherwise people searching for "sell" or "reselling" or else wouldn't find it).
BTW I suggest everyone, at least MVPs, take care of building accurate titles in their messages, reflecting the particular message, not the thread (for the thread, there is already "OE > View > Current View > Group Messages by Conversation"). Please refrain from replying without thinking first - or instead of progressing you would start the too well known infinitely repeated sterile rants.
Paris, Tue 5 Sep 2006 11:53:10 +0200
----- Message 2 (links are clickable) -----
From: "Ken Blake, MVP" <
[email protected]>
Newsgroup: news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Message: news://msnews.microsoft.com/
[email protected]
Sent: Sun 3 Sep 2006 13:49:08 -0700 (20:49:08 GMT)
Subject: Re: resall XP
I'm not sure I understand. Do you want to move XP Home from one computer to another?
If so, assuming that it's a retail version, you don't have to pay anything. Doing so is perfectly acceptable, and within the terms of the license, without any fee at all.
However, if it's an OEM version you may not do it at all. The EULA forbids it, and it's not a question of paying.
On the other hand, if you want to have a single copy of XP Home on both of two different computers, and if yours is a retail version, not an OEM one, you can buy extra licenses (see
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobuy/addlic.asp). But it's not generally a good deal. The problem is that Microsoft sells additional licenses at only a small savings over the list price. You're almost certainly better off just buying a complete second copy from a discount source.
--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
----- Message 1 (links are clickable) -----
From: "spankyjo54" <
[email protected]>
Newsgroup: news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Message: news://msnews.microsoft.com/
[email protected]
Sent: Sun 3 Sep 2006 11:26:01 -0700 (18:26:01 GMT)
Subject: resall XP
I just reciently bought XP Pro and want to put it on my computer but, was wondering if I can pay to have the XP Home Ed I have now reset to use on a different computer? I do have two licences for the one disk I have as I have two computers, but wondered if I can buy an extra licence to put it on a third computer.
============= Other Thread BEG =============
----- Message A3 (links are clickable) -----
From: "Michel Merlin" <
[email protected]>
Newsgroup: news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlookexpress.general
Message: news://msnews.microsoft.com/
[email protected]
Sent: Mon 4 Sep 2006 11:19:10 +0200 (09:19:10 GMT)
Subject: Please read b4 posting - and *Group Messages by Conversation*
Robear, before posting, please read the message to which you
think you are "answering"; to make it easier for the ones
impaired to the point of being unable to "OE > View > Current
View > Group Messages by Conversation" (e.g.), I followed the
(regrettable) usage of including the Parent Messages. Here,
please at least read the Subject, or even only the 1st phrase of
that Subject:
Index vs Subject
then in body, read the 7 first "- ask yourself ...". Then please
re-read them, *as a regular citizen*, i.e. with 100 times more
care, attention, open mind, kindness, than an ordinary
journalist or "help" desk staff or MVP.
This (if ever you did it) would save you a few ridiculous posts.
Paris, Mon 4 Sep 2006 11:19:10 +0200
----- Message A2 (links are clickable) -----
From: "PA Bear" <
[email protected]>
Newsgroup: news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlookexpress.general
Message: news://msnews.microsoft.com/%
[email protected]
Sent: Sun 3 Sep 2006 16:27:02 -0400 (20:27:02 GMT)
Subject: Re: Index vs Subject, Wrap at 64, OE Folder size or
compaction
*Please* stop hijacking threads (opening a reply to an existing
thread and changing the subject), Michel! Thank you.
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-Windows (IE/OE, Security, Shell/User)
----- Message A1 (links are clickable) -----
From: "Michel Merlin" <
[email protected]>
Newsgroup: news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlookexpress.general
Message: news://msnews.microsoft.com/%
[email protected]
Sent: Sun 3 Sep 2006 15:35:50 +0200 (13:35:50 GMT)
Subject: Index vs Subject, Wrap at 64, OE Folder size or
compaction
« your ... continuously changing the Subject line »
« set your Plain Text settings to wrap at 76 like you
should »
This confirms that Bruce Hagen not only didn't read the posts of
mine he however allows himself to comment and qualify (and even
"reply"
), but never really thought of what is at stake
there, even after what I recalled in those posts.
Since he won't read what he never read so far, it's useless to
explain again. For those unaware I just recall again, in short:
- ask yourself what is a Forum Title and Subject
- ask yourself what is a Thread Subject
- ask yourself what is a Message Title or Subject
- ask yourself what are the "Message-ID" and "References" found
in the header of every message, whether Mail or News;
- ask yourself what was the intent of these items
- ask yourself what is OTOH the way these items are actually
used in real world, why, and with which results, good or bad
- ask yourself what is the use of a "Subject line" when it's the
same in all messages (as is unfortunately the unthought habit
on the web currently); IOW, how efficiently would you read
your newspaper if all articles had the same title (or "Subject
line"), like "Re: [put here the actual title of the 1st
article on the 1st page]"?
- ask yourself what is the use of this:
"OE > Tools > Options > Send > News Sending Format >
Plain Text Settings > Automatically wrap text at |_|
characters, when sending"
if "set your Plain Text settings to wrap at 76"
was the only correct settings ("like you should")?
Personally I intensively use the 2 extreme settings allowed (64
and 132), and I only regret that, here as everywhere else, MS is
so deeply thinking one must be stupid to buy MS products, that
it forces any MS buyer into reduced ranges as this 64-132
(surely to "protect" the MS buyer against his supposed
stupidity).
May I recall here another thing well known from any civilized
gentleman: the more you are thoughtful and instructed, the more
you guess that others are too; OTOH the more uneducated you are,
the more you a priori take others for still more uneducated than
you are. Which Charles Darwin resumed this way:
« Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does
knowledge » (in modern words: arrogance more often denotes
ignorance than knowledge).
Continuing parsing BH's authoritative stances (while deeply
regretting once more that BH and his fellows so constantly
poison the atmosphere as soon as I try nevertheless to write
about what I want, no matter how kind and careful I can be):
« if you never compact, you will lose [your messages]
sooner or later »
BH is obviously replying me without reading me: I showed this
full wrong in several posts reporting experiences from myself
and others - but again, BH allows himself to scorn, disparage,
laugh at, my messages, without having read them.
I recall in short: many people have intensively used OE for all
their mail and news (and for more in my case), for years (since
1999 for me), and never lost messages. What they seem to have in
common is to keep their OE folders in reasonable sizes (under
60MB in my case), and *never* compact. But BH prefers repeat the
Urban Legend (i.e. something infinitely repeated while never
checked against reality) that corruption would come from
refusing compaction.
Paris, Sun 3 Sep 2006 15:35:50 +0200
...............
============= Other Thread END =============
