Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.comp.software.thunderbird > #232 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-04-25 09:28 +0100 |
| Last post | 2021-04-26 17:55 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 65 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.software.thunderbird
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-04-25 09:28 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text MB <MB@nospam.net> - 2021-04-25 10:11 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Jim S <jim@jimXscott.co.uk> - 2021-04-25 10:25 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-04-25 10:47 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text MB <MB@nospam.net> - 2021-04-25 11:04 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Chris Youlden <fbx@youlden.co.uk> - 2021-04-25 12:13 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-04-25 12:27 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Chris Youlden <fbx@youlden.co.uk> - 2021-04-26 12:33 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)" <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2021-04-26 09:11 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-04-26 09:19 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-26 07:55 -0700
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text MB <MB@nospam.net> - 2021-04-26 17:11 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2021-04-26 16:47 +0000
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-26 10:45 -0700
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Marc Auslander <marcausl@gmail.com> - 2021-04-26 14:04 -0400
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2021-04-26 18:20 +0000
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-26 11:44 -0700
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-26 16:02 -0600
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-26 16:49 -0700
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-26 18:39 -0600
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-27 09:15 -0700
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-27 12:26 -0600
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-28 08:20 -0700
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-28 10:37 -0600
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Laurence Taylor <laurence@nospam.plus.com> - 2021-04-28 21:40 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text MB <MB@nospam.net> - 2021-04-28 22:01 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> - 2021-04-29 09:19 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Miguel Tomar Nogueira <mnogueira@mail.telepac.pt> - 2021-04-28 02:29 +0000
OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text) "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2021-04-28 16:14 +0100
Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text) Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-28 08:42 -0700
Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text) "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2021-04-28 17:42 +0100
Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text) Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-28 10:07 -0700
Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text) "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2021-04-28 18:37 +0100
Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text) Dave <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2021-04-28 16:59 +0100
Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text) Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-28 10:45 -0600
Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text) "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2021-04-28 17:50 +0100
Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text) Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-28 10:57 -0600
Re: OT: posting/emailing style (was: Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text) "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2021-04-28 18:10 +0100
Re: OT: posting/emailing style Richmond <richmond@criptext.com> - 2021-04-28 20:33 +0100
Re: OT: posting/emailing style Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-28 14:31 -0600
Re: OT: posting/emailing style The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-04-28 13:38 -0700
Re: OT: posting/emailing style Richmond <richmond@criptext.com> - 2021-04-28 21:35 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> - 2021-04-26 23:29 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-26 16:01 -0600
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> - 2021-04-26 23:28 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-26 16:57 -0700
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-26 18:56 -0600
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-27 09:32 -0700
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-27 10:59 -0600
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-27 10:26 -0700
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-27 12:28 -0600
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-28 08:23 -0700
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-28 10:50 -0600
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-28 10:51 -0600
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-28 10:15 -0700
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-04-28 11:48 -0600
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-28 10:58 -0700
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-04-26 20:00 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-04-26 12:25 -0700
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2021-04-26 16:26 -0500
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Miguel Tomar Nogueira <mnogueira@mail.telepac.pt> - 2021-04-27 05:07 +0000
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Bill H <bhtemp99@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2021-04-26 09:06 -0700
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2021-04-26 15:54 -0500
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text Chris Youlden <fbx@youlden.co.uk> - 2021-04-26 22:58 +0100
Re: Thunderbird - disabling display of quoted text VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2021-04-26 17:55 -0500
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-28 13:38 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OT: posting/emailing style |
| Message-ID | <s6ch3g$jag$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #373 |
On 04/28/2021 01:31 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
> Conversely top posting with full history below takes virtually no
> effort. Pruning that trail does take effort, especially when some
> providers go out of their way to hide it.
OTOH, it seems considerate to remove the chaff if you're only discussing
part of the message.
> I'm going with the lowest common denominator, read laziest, here.
Some support entities want you to top-post and include everything so
that a new support person will see the entire history. Makes sense.
It's very different for normal "conversation", though.
--
Cheers, Bev
"Screw the end users. If they want good software,
let them write it themselves." -- Anon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richmond <richmond@criptext.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-28 21:35 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: posting/emailing style |
| Message-ID | <84y2d2rvtp.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #371 |
š Good Guy š <Hello.World@example.com> writes: > On 28/04/2021 20:33, Richmond wrote: > > I think the reason why some people quote the entire history is because > they use servers which don't store much history. > > This is Are you assuming I cannot see your posts? I can see them because I installed w3m so that gnus can display them. Obviously it wasn't worth it in your case, but maybe some people genuinely don't know what they are doing with their client but have something interesting to say.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-26 23:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ieot5iFt43kU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #263 |
On 26/04/2021 19:44, Ken Blake wrote: > No argument from me, but it matters much less if the quoted material and > the reply both fit on the screen. > > I use an upright monitor for this. Bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-26 16:01 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <s67d9s$1hk$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #260 |
On 4/26/21 12:20 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote: > Preserving logical reading order still matters. Indeed! -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-26 23:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ieot4fFt43kU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #257 |
On 26/04/2021 18:45, Ken Blake wrote: > Yes! If replies only quoted the points being replied to, it would > usually not matter I never over quote. Bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-26 16:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <iep2bmFu1siU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #276 |
On 4/26/2021 3:28 PM, williamwright wrote: > On 26/04/2021 18:45, Ken Blake wrote: > >> Yes! If replies only quoted the points being replied to, it would >> usually not matter > > I never over quote. I try to never overquote, but not being perfect, I sometimes err in that regard. By the way, in this case, as far as I'm concerned, you underquoted, since someone new to the thread wouldn't necessarily understand what would usually not matter. -- Ken
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-26 18:56 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <s67nhi$4rs$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #281 |
On 4/26/21 5:57 PM, Ken Blake wrote: > By the way, in this case, as far as I'm concerned, you underquoted, > since someone new to the thread wouldn't necessarily understand what > would usually not matter. You said "someone new to the thread". Meaning that they would have access to the collection of messages. Which means that they could read them in chronological order and have full context. It's natural to assume that someone jumping into the /middle/ of a conversation would not have context and would be confused. There is zero reason to carry the entire conversation forward in each and every single message. >>>>>>>>> Q1 ... >>>>>>>> A1 ... >>>>>>> Q2 ... >>>>>> A2 ... >>>>> Q3 ... >>>> A3 ... >>> Q4 ... >> A4 ... > Q5 ... A5 ... $DEITY forbid that something happens to break the line wrapping. >>>>>>>>>> Q1 >>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> A1 >>>> ... >>>>>>>> Q2 >>>>> ... >>>>>>> A2 > ... >>>>>> Q3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>> A3 > ... >>>> Q4 > ... >>> A4 >>> ... >> Q5 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... > A5 ... $DEITY help you if the lines consist of more than "Q#" or "A#" and "..." wherein lines end up betting re wrapped with different indentations. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-27 09:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ieqsk3Fa8veU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #284 |
On 4/26/2021 5:56 PM, Grant Taylor wrote: > On 4/26/21 5:57 PM, Ken Blake wrote: >> By the way, in this case, as far as I'm concerned, you underquoted, >> since someone new to the thread wouldn't necessarily understand what >> would usually not matter. > > You said "someone new to the thread". Meaning that they would have > access to the collection of messages. Which means that they could read > them in chronological order and have full context. If he saved the previous messages. And even if he saved them, he may display only the unread messages (as I do). Yes, he can probably go back and find what was replied to even if he doesn't display the already-read messages, but to me that's almost always a nuisance and I rarely do it. In my opinion, a reply should not make anyone do that if you want everyone to understand what you're saying. > It's natural to assume that someone jumping into the /middle/ of a > conversation would not have context and would be confused. > > There is zero reason to carry the entire conversation forward in each > and every single message. I agree. But I disagree that that means it's OK not to quote enough to make your reply understood. -- Ken
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-27 10:59 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <s69g0c$soc$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #294 |
On 4/27/21 10:32 AM, Ken Blake wrote: > If he saved the previous messages. And even if he saved them, he may > display only the unread messages (as I do). Yes, he can probably go back > and find what was replied to even if he doesn't display the already-read > messages, but to me that's almost always a nuisance and I rarely do it. > In my opinion, a reply should not make anyone do that if you want > everyone to understand what you're saying. I think we might be talking past each other a bit. > I agree. But I disagreeĀ that that means it's OK not to quote enough to > make your reply understood. I believe that judicious quotes should be used. Meaning quote (at least) specifically what you're replying to. But don't quote unnecessarily. That way when someone -- who has overall thread contest -- reads the message they will have both the specific part the reply is in reference to and the reply directly on screen in the same message. The key is to make the information, both the reply and what the reply is in reference to, be easily accessible with minimal effort on the reader's part. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-27 10:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ieqvpsFar55U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #296 |
On 4/27/2021 9:59 AM, Grant Taylor wrote: > On 4/27/21 10:32 AM, Ken Blake wrote: >> If he saved the previous messages. And even if he saved them, he may >> display only the unread messages (as I do). Yes, he can probably go back >> and find what was replied to even if he doesn't display the already-read >> messages, but to me that's almost always a nuisance and I rarely do it. >> In my opinion, a reply should not make anyone do that if you want >> everyone to understand what you're saying. > > I think we might be talking past each other a bit. > >> I agree. But I disagreeĀ that that means it's OK not to quote enough to >> make your reply understood. > > I believe that judicious quotes should be used. > > Meaning quote (at least) specifically what you're replying to. But > don't quote unnecessarily. > > That way when someone -- who has overall thread contest -- reads the > message they will have both the specific part the reply is in reference > to and the reply directly on screen in the same message. > > The key is to make the information, both the reply and what the reply is > in reference to, be easily accessible with minimal effort on the > reader's part. I agree. -- Ken
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-27 12:28 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <s69l65$k11$2@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #299 |
On 4/27/21 11:26 AM, Ken Blake wrote: > I agree. Yet your action's indicate otherwise. Maybe you were trying to be facetious in your reply. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-28 08:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ietcvfFp26mU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #305 |
On 4/27/2021 11:28 AM, Grant Taylor wrote: > On 4/27/21 11:26 AM, Ken Blake wrote: >> I agree. > > Yet your action's indicate otherwise. > > Maybe you were trying to be facetious in your reply. You're underquoting again. I agreed with many things you said. I have no idea which of my "I agree"s you're referring to. -- Ken
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-28 10:50 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <s6c3qi$852$2@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #347 |
On 4/28/21 9:23 AM, Ken Blake wrote: > You're underquoting again. I agreed with many things you said. I have no > idea which of my "I agree"s you're referring to. I replied to the only new content that you added to your message. The only two words that you put in the message I replied to were "I agree.", in response to 15 lines of quote, 5 of which were quotes of quotes. So your quote ratio was demonstrating that you did not agree. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-28 10:51 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <s6c3td$852$3@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #299 |
On 4/27/21 11:26 AM, Ken Blake wrote: > On 4/27/2021 9:59 AM, Grant Taylor wrote: >> On 4/27/21 10:32 AM, Ken Blake wrote: >>> If he saved the previous messages. And even if he saved them, he may >>> display only the unread messages (as I do). Yes, he can probably go >>> back and find what was replied to even if he doesn't display the >>> already-read messages, but to me that's almost always a nuisance and >>> I rarely do it. In my opinion, a reply should not make anyone do that >>> if you want everyone to understand what you're saying. >> >> I think we might be talking past each other a bit. >> >>> I agree. But I disagreeĀ that that means it's OK not to quote enough >>> to make your reply understood. >> >> I believe that judicious quotes should be used. >> >> Meaning quote (at least) specifically what you're replying to.Ā But >> don't quote unnecessarily. >> >> That way when someone -- who has overall thread contest -- reads the >> message they will have both the specific part the reply is in reference >> to and the reply directly on screen in the same message. >> >> The key is to make the information, both the reply and what the reply is >> in reference to, be easily accessible with minimal effort on the >> reader's part. > > I agree. Yet your action's indicate otherwise. Maybe you were trying to be facetious in your reply. I'm re-replying to this message with out any quote trimming so that Ken can see more context. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-28 10:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ietjhmFqan2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #358 |
On 4/28/2021 9:51 AM, Grant Taylor wrote: > On 4/27/21 11:26 AM, Ken Blake wrote: >>> >>> The key is to make the information, both the reply and what the reply is >>> in reference to, be easily accessible with minimal effort on the >>> reader's part. >> >> I agree. > > Yet your action's indicate otherwise. > > Maybe you were trying to be facetious in your reply. > > I'm re-replying to this message with out any quote trimming so that Ken > can see more context. I've said my piece in this thread, repeating myself on some points several times. I have nothing new to add to what I've already said, so I won't repeat myself, and I'll let the thread die. I'll add just one quick comment in reply to this message: what I was agreeing with is that "The key is to make the information, both the reply and what the reply is in reference to, be easily accessible with minimal effort on the reader's part." I wasn't being facetious. That's my last post on this subject. Feel free to believe whatever you want. -- Ken
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-28 11:48 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <s6c78i$um9$2@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #363 |
On 4/28/21 11:15 AM, Ken Blake wrote: > That's my last post on this subject. Feel free to believe whatever you > want. We may not see directly eye to eye. But I do think it was a good and polite conversation. So I'll consider that a win for Usenet. :-) Have a good day. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-28 10:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ietm1aFqpknU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #367 |
On 4/28/2021 10:48 AM, Grant Taylor wrote: > On 4/28/21 11:15 AM, Ken Blake wrote: >> That's my last post on this subject. Feel free to believe whatever you >> want. > > We may not see directly eye to eye. But I do think it was a good and > polite conversation. So I'll consider that a win for Usenet. :-) > > Have a good day. You too. -- Ken
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-26 20:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ieoguaFqptgU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #252 |
Ken Blake wrote: > Brian Gaff wrote: > >> Yeah, that is why I top post! > > Whether you top post, bottom post, or intersperse post is entirely up to > you, but as far as I'm concerned, top-posters are a nuisance, and > quickly get killfiled here. You have read the reason for Brian's top-posting in his .sig? He gets some latitude in the uk. groups for that reason ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-26 12:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ieoidqFr6enU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #264 |
On 4/26/2021 12:00 PM, Andy Burns wrote: > Ken Blake wrote: > >> Brian Gaff wrote: >> >>> Yeah, that is why I top post! >> >> Whether you top post, bottom post, or intersperse post is entirely up to >> you, but as far as I'm concerned, top-posters are a nuisance, and >> quickly get killfiled here. > > You have read the reason for Brian's top-posting in his .sig? He gets > some latitude in the uk. groups for that reason ... The sig that says "Note this Signature is meaningless.!"? And the sig that violates the Usenet convention of a four-line maximum? Moreover, I never read any of the details of a signature. The only thing I'm interested in there is the name of the poster. Given that his signature is meaningless, I doubt whether he's really blind. But if he is, OK, I'll make allowances for him. -- Ken
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-04-26 16:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <19dxlxrh43pim.dlg@v.nguard.lh> |
| In reply to | #266 |
Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote: > The sig that says "Note this Signature is meaningless.!"? And the sig > that violates the Usenet convention of a four-line maximum? > > Moreover, I never read any of the details of a signature. The only thing > I'm interested in there is the name of the poster. > > Given that his signature is meaningless, I doubt whether he's really > blind. But if he is, OK, I'll make allowances for him. My NNTP client is configured to hide the sigblock. It contains fluff and is usually off-topic to the discussion. I had to use the raw source view to see he put the quoted content in the wrong place. In Brian's post: - He positioned the quoted content AFTER the sigdash line. Quoted content is *NOT* part of a signature! - Whatever posting style you choose (top or bottom), the quoted content should match. Else, you have no valid argument for choosing one over the other, and are a lazy slob creating a jumbled mess for others to waste time to decipher. Argue all you want about top- versus bottom- posting, but to actually have an argument for a style choice then also apply it the quoted content! - Because of his mispositioning of quoted content to place after the sigdash line, and even just for his own fluff content in the signature, and as you mention, he far exceeds the 4-line max netiquette for signatures. He royally screwed up his sig. Might be due to him using Outlook Express which mispositions the sigdash line -- and why many OE users started using the OE-QuoteFix extension to OE. Despite all the arguments over which style to use, the basic flaw in the top-posting argument is to equate e-mail to Usenet. Nope, those are NOT the same communications venue. Just because I can bounce a croquet ball off a windshield doesn't make it equate to how you play croquet. Just because you use a combination client that does both e-mail and newsgroups does NOT mean the same netiquette applies in different venues. Back in Windows XP SP-2, there was a registry hack for where to start a reply and where to position the sigblock. Since Microsoft dropped OE, they didn't bother moving those into the GUI config options visible from within OE. Since most users never bother to read the update descriptions, OE users rarely know about the registry edits. The registry hacks were mentioned in Microsoft's KB 886340 article, but Microsoft has since deleted their WinXP help or KB pages. Alas, my old notes pointed to the KB article which Microsoft deleted. Also, an updated version of OE was needed to recognize the new settings in the registry. A problem with OE's registry hacks is they apply to both e-mail and newsgroup messages. Microsoft wasn't smart enough to provide separate application of the registry edits to allow one set to affect e-mails and a different set of edits to affect newsgroups. If you change the registry entries for best newsgroup style, you screw up what most recipients expect in e-mails. Combination comm clients are often NOT best of breed, and OE is an example of poor in breed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.software.thunderbird
csiph-web