N
Nonny
I think you have it reversed: Top-posting is not highly-regarded among
experienced Usenet afficianados. It's considered to be poor
"netiquette."
Rules of Conduct for the Microsoft Windows Vista Newsgroup
I think you have it reversed: Top-posting is not highly-regarded among
experienced Usenet afficianados. It's considered to be poor
"netiquette."
A
Adam Albright
Yep, and almost always a sign of some knucklehead fanboy clown.
G
Gordon
Nonny said:
It's not so much "netiquette" as the fact that you don't read text from the
bottom up, which is what you get with top posting...
P
propman
Gordon said:
I don't read from right to left either.......but some rascals do!
Whatever one gets used to...
A
Adam Albright
One more time for the utterly clueless. There is NO SUCH THING as a
Microsoft newsgroup. A newsgroup is simply that, one of more than
100,000 groups part of Usenet. No special rules apply to Microsoft
groups.
The only proper Netiquetee when posting to ANY newsgroup including
Microsoft groups is to respond at the END of the prior poster's
comments. Since most people leave at least some of what they are
responding to as some quoted text the flow is top to bottom, AS IT
SHOULD BE when reading English.
Only bone-headed morons (yes, if you use Outlook or are dumb enough to
worship Microsoft, God knows we have plenty of those kind of fools
here) the term applies. Such dummies think it is proper to add their
comments at the top. Actually the real reason many do it is these
dopes think it has a better chance of being read, thus they put
whatever they want to say at the top, hoping it is read.
The reason this makes absolutely no sense is anyone just joining the
thread will see some twit responding to something said, that now
appears below the response just made. Since most people are smart
enough to post at the bottom you can end up with threads that cause
you to jump all over the place, up, down to follow the flow of the
conversation, utterly stupid, thus why it is frowned on in the much
greater universe of Usenet of which this and other Microsoft groups
are but a tiny part.
Worse,it really makes a bad first impression. Anytime I see a poster I
haven't read before top post, I automatically make a mental note he's
a top posting idiot. Hart to take any such dummy seriously because
obviously he doesn't give a rat's ass about anyone reading his and
other people's comments in a orderly top down flow, only that he's
dumb enough to think whatever he said belongs at the top.
A
Adam Albright
Carey is a wannabe Net Cop. He gets off trying to act like he's in
charge. A couple days ago he also hinted HE is the clown that tattles
to Microsoft and demands they remove certain posts that twist his
shorts all in a bunch. The term for jerks like him is prima donna.
That term has roots with certain usually fat principal female singers
in an opera or concert organization being extremely vain, sensitive
and demanding because they think they are something special and have a
right to tell everybody else what to do. Carey EXCELLS at trying to do
that like other MVP's that hang out in this backward newsgroup. The
reason for that is obvious too. They can't cut it in other more
technical Microsoft groups where the slop and canned answers they
typically give would likely be challenged on their technical merits,
so they hang out here and try to bully as many as possible knowing
this group is infested with losers like butt kissing morons like Frank
and fields many questions from beginners they think they can ridicule,
scold and make fun of.
T
the wharf rat
Great Ghu! No, it's the other way around!!!
A few lines of the previous message to set context and your
comments. Anyone who needs more can follow the thread back. Top posting
means that in order to get context you neeed to scroll to the bottom, read
the included text (which will probably be the ENTIRE previous message!) and
then go back and read the comment which will now make sense...
The third camp just gravels the whole damn yard so they don't
have to weed.
The fourth camp plants a wildflower meadow.
The fifth camp tries to install Ubuntu on the lawn sprinkler.
T
the wharf rat
They're not Microsoft's newsgroups. They're Usenet groups
Microsoft carries on their news servers. Top posting is an artifact
of using Outlook.
A
Adam Albright
Yep, which is a revealing test. Any dope that thinks Outlook is a
newsreader is at best a Rube and often a lot dumber.
G
Gordon
Possibly, but they are replicated over many thousands of other servers
world-wide. For example, I read the Microsoft newsgroups via
drooper.mixmin.net, for technical reasons I won't bore you with...
T
the wharf rat
Lol.
"Microsoft owns a Ford truck. They have painted that truck red.
Therefore all Ford trucks are painted red."
That's a fallacy of composition. Microsoft owns the servers on which
a single instance of "foo.bar.blah.general" is hosted on. They own that
single instance, not the aggregate meta-entity which is "foo.bar.blah.general".
Pffftttt.
A
Adam Albright
I do find it amusing where some try to beat a dead horse, so knock
yourself out for our amusement. I'll see how far I can read before I
get bored out of my skull.
For starters you are lumping together the hardware, ie, the server
which nobody disputes msnews.microsoft.com owns, the CONTENT posted on
it and the means (Usenet) by which traffic travels from posters to
readers of this newsgroup. Convoluted but classic apples and oranges
differences.
If we all were REQUIRED to log on to and exclusively use Microsoft's
server to access this an other Microsoft groups then your statement
might hold water. The reality is the vast majority of people accessing
this newsgroup to read posts do so through news servers that are in no
way associated with or controlled by Microsoft. A sobering fact you
can't run away from, no matter how hard you try.
Secondly, apparently you are ignorant of the fact that the majority of
posts do NOT originate on msnews.microsoft.com. They start somewhere
else and often NEVER pass through msnews.microsoft.com at all.
To foolishly infer since Microsoft pays for, sponsors and hosts every
newsgroup on their domain gives them some right to censor, control or
in any way administer content on every news server regardless where it
is located or owned by is just as preposterous as suggesting laws
written by UK's Parliament apply everywhere in the world if you speak
English.
I got news for you buddy. A news server isn't a "site", which again
points to your ignorance on this topic. By contrast Web pages are
located on some web server unless "mirrored" then there is a single
URL that points to a particular and SIGNULAR web page. THEN you would
be correct. If I create a web site I have exclusive control and also I
am responsible for it's content.
However we're not talking about sites or web pages. We're discussing a
post to a newsgroup carried by a network of connected news servers.
Then any control is LIMITED to the SINGLE COPY of any post that
originates on or passes through such a news server. So again NOBODY
disputes that Microsoft as stupid as it is can censor or do anything
they wish with the SINGLE COPY of any post from any poster located on
THEIR news server, but that is the extend of the "control" they have
no matter how hard you wish they can control all copies everywhere in
the world.
The thousands of other copies of the same post are not owned or in any
way controlled by the entity from which they originated or passed
through. It actually is a very simple concept to understand.
I hear that a lot after a beat somebody senseless with facts they
can't dispute.
A
Adam Albright
Sorry to say it, but you're totally wrong. Honest you are. Really!
1. You can't "sponsor" a newsgroup. That implies Microsoft is paying
someone to take their feed. The reality is for years posts from
Microsoft's news server have been stolen right out from under them
by several of the big backbone Usenet providers. I find that
amusing and I bet old Stevie and Bill were really pissed about it
when they first found out. What did they do about it? Nothing! What
could they do about it? NOTHING!
2. Microsoft can't give permission to do something to something
it doesn't own. Since the majority of posts to this newsgroup do
NOT originate on Microsoft news server or even pass through it,
your statement is totally ludicrous.
3. There is only ONE rule on Usenet. There are no rules. Since you
appear too dumb to know that trying to educate you on the ways of
Usenet is frankly a waste of time.
Oh damn, where the hell to you get your wacko information from? All
you're doing is trying to build a strawman so you can pretend somebody
is disagreeing with what you claim so you can then claim they're
wrong.
The issue isn't who owns what news servers, rather who if anyone has a
right to edit, censor or in any way control what's said that's
available on news servers OUTSIDE Microsoft's control.
You are trying to suggest Microsoft can since they originally created
any number of Microsoft groups originally in the distant past that
were only available from them in the beginning. That is a red herring.
Meaningless to the discussion.
Hard to believe anyone is as dumb as you are on this topic, but I'll
give you the benefit of the doubt since you seem hell bent on sticking
with what is obviously a loony position. You made your bed, so sleep
in it. You'll excuse me if I and other just snicker at your unproven
assumptions.
First off Usenet is similar in structure to the phone companies
relative to ownership. Both news service providers and phone companies
own the hardware that makes communications possible but that is all
they own. No argument there. Stop pretending we're suggesting
something else. However they do not and can not "own" any
communications (posts) or attach any rules to how it (any post) may be
distributed. Period.
The poster or author of ANY work posted to Usenet owns the copyright
by default on the work (post) even if the drivel is from some moron
like Frank. By posting to Usenet, anyone doing so is giving de facto
permission for their post to be carried and read over Usenet by anyone
that wants to carry the newsgroup that it was posted to.
Total and complete bullshit. You truly are a fool for thinking so. One
more time, try to pay attention. The majority of traffic to this and
every other Microsoft group does NOT originate or pass through
Microsoft servers. That alone kills any argument you can try to make.
Why not?
It's simply how Usenet works. Obviously something you don't understand
at all. Period.
Of course you don't, because it totally blows you half-cocked notion
out the window. If some post originates outside Microsoft's server
(the majority of course do) then ownership could never attach. You
argument makes no sense. None.
Pure garbage. Do you even know what a header is? Well do you? Then
look at some and you'll see you're in error. What you're suggesting is
the New York Times has editorial oversight of the Chicago Tribune.
Hogwash.
He's laughing at you and so am I because you're pontificating without
having a clue WHAT you're pontificating about it. Damn funny, but you
should know it makes you look rather stupid.
Totally wrong, untrue and mind boggling anyone would be dumb enough to
think it was true. Keep it up and you'll rival the newsgroup clown,
Frank, as the dumbest poster here. Is that what you want? Well then go
for it. Just remember you'll piss off Frank. He loves being the
newsgroup buffoon and he won't give up his title without a fight.
A
Alias
Adam Albright wrote:
Keep it up and you'll rival the newsgroup clown,
I don't think Frank has anything to worry about. If MS gave out a Golden
Toilet Award every year, Frank would win every year and could sign his
name Frank, MSGTA.
Alias
Keep it up and you'll rival the newsgroup clown,
I don't think Frank has anything to worry about. If MS gave out a Golden
Toilet Award every year, Frank would win every year and could sign his
name Frank, MSGTA.
Alias
S
spankydemonkey
If MS gave out a "Golden Sheep ****er Award", Alias would come up to
the podium and thank the Academy.
A
Adam Albright
You really need help with your sheep obsession. Maybe Frank's Shrink
can help.
T
the wharf rat
No, not at all. First of all, much of this content doesn't
even originate on anything owned by MS. Second of all, Usenet is a
push medium. When you set up a site you install a bunch of rule sets
that control what you send and what you receive and you push articles the
partner doesn't have. Then your partners push it to their partners, and so
on. There's no per-content agreement at all. You'd have a hard time
complaining that someone had your content after you sent it to them, anyway.
No, it's actually owned by the person originating the article.
That's called a "copyright" and it's what prevents someone from just gathering
up a million Usenet postings and publishing them herself.
I've consulted with attorneys many times when setting these things
up. You need to assure management that you're not liable for user-originated
content, that you have procedures in place to answer subpoenas and criminal
complaint, and that you can meet promised SLA's using a herd of performing
elephants. One thing that's never come up (well, never come up except for
Clarinet) is whether we need permission to propagate this content.
Lol. Ok, how exactly will they censor or edit posts that have
propagated to 10,000 servers in every country in the world? That's an
awful lot of civil suits.
Nahh, I'm too ugly even for those guys.
It's kind of ironic that you're trying to teach me about how
Usenet works. I suppose next you'll be teaching me to write C code. I'll
submit the following for your illumination; it's the earliest thing I
can find at google nee deja news. It's from when I ran hoxna. You
can still find me on some of Lori's old UUCP maps...
http://groups.google.com/group/news...26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=hoxna\!lou#bf7d51bf8757cd26
Argument by authority is only invalid when you're not an
authority, ya see
M
measekite
Frank said:
T
The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly
Donald said:
Sounds like the sheeple who bend over and take it from MS.
You sound like an authority on the subject, so you must have alot of
experience. You should apply to be one of the judges for the MS golden
sheep award. I bet you'd make it, you nymshifter.
--
"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett
DRM and unintended consequences:
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=435&tag=nl.e101
M
Mick Murphy
Rules of Conduct: Carey Frisch to STOP Spamming!