Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #219059 > unrolled thread

Top or bottom posting; does it really matter?

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-09-26 20:51 +0100
    Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-09-26 14:20 -0600
      Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-09-27 09:58 +0100
        Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? D.J. <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2021-09-27 10:03 -0500
        Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-09-27 19:57 +0000
        Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2021-09-28 13:09 +0000
          Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? Charles Richmond <codescott@aquaporin4.com> - 2021-09-29 11:54 -0500
            Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-09-29 20:42 +0100
            Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-09-29 20:20 +0000
        Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> - 2021-09-29 01:13 +0000
        Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2021-09-29 22:25 -0400
    Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-09-26 21:44 +0100
      Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2021-09-27 01:41 -0300
        Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-09-26 23:54 -0600
          Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-09-27 00:01 -0700
          Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2021-09-27 20:25 -0300
            Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-09-28 00:03 -0600
            Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? Charles Richmond <codescott@aquaporin4.com> - 2021-09-28 01:04 -0500
        Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? Nemo <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-27 13:45 -0400
      Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-09-27 10:00 +0100
        Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-09-27 11:03 +0100
          Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2021-09-27 21:10 -0300
        Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2021-09-27 18:23 -0500
        Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? Charles Richmond <codescott@aquaporin4.com> - 2021-09-28 01:18 -0500
          Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> - 2021-09-29 01:20 +0000
          Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2021-09-29 17:10 -0500
            Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-09-30 09:41 +0100
              Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-09-30 10:22 +0100
                Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2021-09-30 10:42 +0100
              Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-09-30 14:31 +0000
                Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> - 2021-10-01 01:58 +0000
              Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? D.J. <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2021-09-30 10:07 -0500
              Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2021-09-30 10:23 -0500
    Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-09-27 15:35 -0400
      Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-09-27 21:34 +0100
        Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? D.J. <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2021-09-27 18:24 -0500
          Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-09-27 21:45 -0400
            Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2021-09-28 13:12 +0000
              Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-09-28 18:33 +0100
                Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-09-28 18:16 +0000
                  Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-09-28 20:20 +0100
                  Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-09-28 16:39 -0700
                    Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? Charles Richmond <codescott@aquaporin4.com> - 2021-09-29 12:03 -0500
                      Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? 711 Spooky Mart <711@spooky.mart> - 2021-09-30 23:11 -0500
                      Re: Sub or dom ; does it really matter? 711 Spooky Mart <711@spooky.mart> - 2021-09-30 23:17 -0500
                        Re: Sub or dom ; does it really matter? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2021-10-01 18:57 +0000
                          Re: Sub or dom ; does it really matter? 711 Spooky Mart <711@spooky.mart> - 2021-10-06 02:11 -0500
                            Re: Sub or dom ; does it really matter? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2021-10-06 14:22 -0300
                              Re: Sub or dom ; does it really matter? 711 Spooky Mart <711@spooky.mart> - 2021-10-07 00:31 -0500
                                Re: Sub or dom ; does it really matter? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2021-10-07 14:33 -0300
                                  Re: Sub or dom ; does it really matter? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-10-07 13:49 -0400
                                    Re: Sub or dom ; does it really matter? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2021-10-07 16:52 -0300
                                      Re: Sub or dom ; does it really matter? Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-07 20:13 +0000
                                      Re: Sub or dom ; does it really matter? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-10-07 18:54 -0400
                                        Re: Sub or dom ; does it really matter? Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-07 23:50 +0000
                                      Re: Sub or dom ; does it really matter? Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-10-07 20:12 -0400
                                        Re: Sub or dom ; does it really matter? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-10-07 20:24 -0400
                                          Re: Sub or dom ; does it really matter? Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-10-08 08:09 -0400
                                            Re: Sub or dom ; does it really matter? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-10-08 13:13 -0400
                                              Re: Sub or dom ; does it really matter? Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-10-08 14:53 -0400
                                                Re: Sub or dom ; does it really matter? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-10-08 19:47 -0400
                                                  Re: Sub or dom ; does it really matter? Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-10-09 13:03 -0400
                                                    Re: Sub or dom ; does it really matter? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-10-09 20:56 -0400
                            Re: Sub or dom ; does it really matter? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2021-10-09 05:48 +0000
                              Re: Sub or dom ; does it really matter? 711 Spooky Mart <711@spooky.mart> - 2021-10-12 10:26 -0500
              Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-09-28 19:03 +0000
                Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? D.J. <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2021-09-28 16:45 -0500
                Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2021-09-29 17:27 -0500
              Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? D.J. <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2021-09-28 16:41 -0500
              Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-09-28 16:55 -0700
                Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-09-28 20:53 -0400
          Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-09-28 09:36 -0700
            Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? D.J. <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2021-09-28 16:46 -0500
        Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> - 2021-09-29 01:18 +0000
      Re: Top or bottom posting; does it really matter? Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> - 2021-09-29 01:17 +0000

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#219067

On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 10:00:40 +0100
gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 26/09/2021 21:44, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 20:51:37 +0100
> > gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In groups.io, a similar facility to usenet, top posting predominates.
> >
> > 	It is common politeness, when joining a group, to adopt the
> > conventions of that group, it is a joy when those conventions are also
> > sensible and a minor burden when they are not.
> >
> 
> But are conventions determined by historical
> personages some of whom are long dead, or do
> the later contributors also have a say in what is a convention?

	The origins of conventions are generally obscured by time, even when
everyone involved is present they can be difficult to pin down, whatever
documentation may remain is usually only a thin remnant of the original
discussions and thinking. Once established they tend to have enormous
inertia by virtue of group acceptance and tend only to change if pretty much
everyone finds them irksome.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219078

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:

> On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 10:00:40 +0100
> gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> But are conventions determined by historical
>> personages some of whom are long dead, or do
>> the later contributors also have a say in what is a convention?
> 
> The origins of conventions are generally obscured by time, even when
> everyone involved is present they can be difficult to pin down, whatever
> documentation may remain is usually only a thin remnant of the original
> discussions and thinking. Once established they tend to have enormous
> inertia by virtue of group acceptance and tend only to change if pretty much
> everyone finds them irksome.

Circa 1972, I visited the celebrated Dauphinee Block Shop in
Lunenburg, NS.   Three-storey frame building with flat-belt-driven
machinery that made the whole building vibrate.

In the cellar they had a blacksmith shop and that day the smith
was making hooks for attachment to fairly large tackle blocks.  He had
several dozen half done and was making the eye by splitting the end of
the iron stock, wrapping the split ends around a mandrel and
forge-welding them shut.

I asked why he was doing it that way as I would have punched or
slot-punched a hole and opened it to desired size, stronger and less
error prone.

"It's stronger that way" was his answer.  As I was a young novice
smith and he was a middle-aged career smith, I didn't argue but  I
didn't get it.

It was years later, looking at a buoy bell clapper salvaged from
Boston Harbor, that it dawned on me.  When Dauphinee's was
established, wrought iron was the article of trade used for anything
"iron".  Wrought iron has a grain resembling wood grain.  Its
structure is anisotropic.  You never [1] make a wrought iron structural
element with a hole under tension near the end of a bar for the same
reason that you don't do that with a 1" pine or oak board; it stresses
the area around the hole in its weakest direction.

Modern "iron" is more properly called "mild steel" and, unlike wrought
iron, it is for practical purposes isotropic.

Dauphinee's had been making tackle since before Bessemer and open
hearth replaced wrought iron with mild steel as the standard article
of commerce.  They'd settled, correctly, on the way to make a tension
eye at the end of an iron rod circa 1850 and had been passing that
wisdom on for 120 years.

[1] Never say never.  The reason the buoy bell clapper [2] caught my
    eye was that it was so corroded that I could plainly see the grain
    of the wrought iron from which it was forged.  The smith had in
    fact punched the eye near the end of the stock but had then forge
    welded a strip of iron across the end where it might tear out with
    the grain of the strip at right angles to that of the clapper and
    thus orthogonal to the direction of tension.

[2] Harold Edgerton collection, MIT.

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219075

On 9/27/2021 4:00 AM, gareth evans wrote:
> But are conventions determined by historical
> personages some of whom are long dead, or do
> the later contributors also have a say in what is a convention?
> 
It's not unlike our language. English in this case. Most of it was 
determined by parties who are long dead, but we mostly follow their 
lead. Those not yet dead can, and sometime do, innovate. (Unless it's 
French, then you need to wait for the Académie Française.) But 99% of 
the time, the "innovations" are just noise at varying levels of 
annoying. The 1% may stick, and be incorporated into the common language.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219082

> On 26/09/2021 21:44, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 20:51:37 +0100
>> gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In groups.io, a similar facility to usenet, top posting predominates.
>>
>>     It is common politeness, when joining a group, to adopt the
>> conventions of that group, it is a joy when those conventions are also
>> sensible and a minor burden when they are not.
>>
> 
> But are conventions determined by historical
> personages some of whom are long dead, or do
> the later contributors also have a say in what is a convention?
>  
  Historically (and probably now), the members of a group decide who 
should be allowed to post. Each person's newsreader software allowed a 
list of addresses to be maintained... and would automatically discard 
messages from that address.  If the majority of members of a group had
your address on their "discard" list, effectively you were kept out.

(There is a name for that "discard" list... but I can not remember it 
now...)

Some "official" groups (not "alt.*" groups) are moderated by an "admin", 
and you have to be officially admitted to the group by that admin.


-- 

Charles Richmond

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219109

On 2021-09-28, Charles Richmond <codescott@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>
> Some "official" groups (not "alt.*" groups) are moderated by an "admin", 
> and you have to be officially admitted to the group by that admin.
>

Well, but moderation can be esilly bypassed by forging
approval header :P
>

-- 

7-77-777
Evil Sinner!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219132

On 9/28/2021 1:18 AM, Charles Richmond wrote:

>   Historically (and probably now), the members of a group decide who 
> should be allowed to post. Each person's newsreader software allowed a 
> list of addresses to be maintained... and would automatically discard 
> messages from that address.  If the majority of members of a group had
> your address on their "discard" list, effectively you were kept out.

On a.f.c. it seems equally to have been a matter of social pressure 
involving attempted correction, giving way to (or sometimes replaced 
by) rude replies. Most transgressors mend their way, or go away. A few 
combative ones remain and get blocked. In spades, as one sometimes said.

> 
> (There is a name for that "discard" list... but I can not remember it 
> now...)

Kill file
> 
> Some "official" groups (not "alt.*" groups) are moderated by an 
> "admin", and you have to be officially admitted to the group by that 
> admin.
> 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219140

It never ceases to amaze me that in a forum for (presumably)
computer experts, who must receive, read, accept, understand and
reply to, emails where top posting is the norm, then have an
emotional reaction against top-posting in this forum.

An open mind for the rest of the World but a closed narrow
mind in this forum? How very strange!

On 29/09/2021 23:10, Dave Garland wrote:
> On 9/28/2021 1:18 AM, Charles Richmond wrote:
>
>>   Historically (and probably now), the members of a group decide who
>> should be allowed to post. Each person's newsreader software allowed a
>> list of addresses to be maintained... and would automatically discard
>> messages from that address.  If the majority of members of a group had
>> your address on their "discard" list, effectively you were kept out.
>
> On a.f.c. it seems equally to have been a matter of social pressure
> involving attempted correction, giving way to (or sometimes replaced by)
> rude replies. Most transgressors mend their way, or go away. A few
> combative ones remain and get blocked. In spades, as one sometimes said.
>
>>
>> (There is a name for that "discard" list... but I can not remember it
>> now...)
>
> Kill file
>>
>> Some "official" groups (not "alt.*" groups) are moderated by an
>> "admin", and you have to be officially admitted to the group by that
>> admin.
>>
>>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219141

On Thu, 30 Sep 2021 09:41:33 +0100
gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:

> It never ceases to amaze me that in a forum for (presumably)

	It never ceases to amaze me that there are some people who for no
good reason lack the common courtesy to follow the conventions of the group.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219142

On Thu, 30 Sep 2021 10:22:44 +0100
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Sep 2021 09:41:33 +0100
> gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > It never ceases to amaze me that in a forum for (presumably)
> 
> 	It never ceases to amaze me that there are some people who
> for no good reason lack the common courtesy to follow the conventions
> of the group.
> 
He's trolling for a flame-war, best to let it go. 
Unless you really want to; in which case please go play over in alt.flame, alt.usenet.kooks or uk.legal or uk.radio-amateur where they love that kind of thing.

-- 
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219150

gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> writes:
>It never ceases to amaze me that in a forum for (presumably)
>computer experts, who must receive, read, accept, understand and
>reply to, emails where top posting is the norm

Facts not in evidence.   One doesn't need to top post even
when using that horrible application called Outlook.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219176

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:


>Facts not in evidence.   One doesn't need to top post even
>when using that horrible application called Outlook.

I think you have it wrong, it's "Look Out" as you'd best look
out if you see it coming....

-- 
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219154

On Thu, 30 Sep 2021 09:41:33 +0100, gareth evans
<headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:

>It never ceases to amaze me that in a forum for (presumably)
>computer experts, who must receive, read, accept, understand and
>reply to, emails where top posting is the norm, then have an
>emotional reaction against top-posting in this forum.
>
>An open mind for the rest of the World but a closed narrow
>mind in this forum? How very strange!

if you had an open mind, you wouldn't top post.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219156

On 9/30/2021 3:41 AM, gareth evans wrote:
> It never ceases to amaze me that in a forum for (presumably)
> computer experts, who must receive, read, accept, understand and
> reply to, emails where top posting is the norm, then have an
> emotional reaction against top-posting in this forum.
> 
Every social group has its own culture. In the case of top posting, I 
assume that the quoted material is worthless and just left by the 
default of the writer's crappy software, is just waste space, and the 
writer was too sloppy to remove it. I don't read it. If the quoted 
material was relevant, the writer would have interspersed their 
comments with the quote. (As you can tell, I'm not a fan of bottom 
posting, either.)

That applies to emails as well. I don't need chain emails with 20 
people sequentially quoting the entire thing before they forward it to 
the next victim. In business, one assumes one is dealing with idiots, 
but hey, at least you're getting paid for it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219072

On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 20:51:37 +0100, gareth evans wrote:
>
> In groups.io, a similar facility to usenet, top posting predominates.

Probably in comp.* or alt.*. If you top post in de.* (you also need to
write in German for that) they roast you. Not just politely replying like
here. If you don't comply by day 3 or 4 you'll end up in about
everybody's killfile.

> But both fora are plagued by over-quoting so anyone following a
> thread sees the same tedious repetition ad nauseam.

That's why trimming was invented.

> For me, if I open any article and all I can see is quoted
> material disappearing off the bottom of he page, then I
> skip over it.

Good newsreader have a function like "Skip beyond quoted text" to start
with the first not quoted line.
-- 
Andreas

PGP fingerprint 952B0A9F12C2FD6C9F7E68DAA9C2EA89D1A370E0

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219074

I don't object to being in the killfiles of small-minded
Usenet wokes.


On 27/09/2021 20:35, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 20:51:37 +0100, gareth evans wrote:
>>
>> In groups.io, a similar facility to usenet, top posting predominates.
>
> Probably in comp.* or alt.*. If you top post in de.* (you also need to
> write in German for that) they roast you. Not just politely replying like
> here. If you don't comply by day 3 or 4 you'll end up in about
> everybody's killfile.

I don't object to being in the killfiles of small-minded
Usenet wokes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219076

On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 21:34:36 +0100, gareth evans
<headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I don't object to being in the killfiles of small-minded
>Usenet wokes.
>
>
>On 27/09/2021 20:35, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 20:51:37 +0100, gareth evans wrote:
>>>
>>> In groups.io, a similar facility to usenet, top posting predominates.
>>
>> Probably in comp.* or alt.*. If you top post in de.* (you also need to
>> write in German for that) they roast you. Not just politely replying like
>> here. If you don't comply by day 3 or 4 you'll end up in about
>> everybody's killfile.
>
>I don't object to being in the killfiles of small-minded
>Usenet wokes.

Woke basically means your head isn't inserted into your buttocks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219079

On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 18:24:08 -0500, D.J. <chucktheouch@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 21:34:36 +0100, gareth evans
><headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>I don't object to being in the killfiles of small-minded
>>Usenet wokes.
>>
>>
>>On 27/09/2021 20:35, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 20:51:37 +0100, gareth evans wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In groups.io, a similar facility to usenet, top posting predominates.
>>>
>>> Probably in comp.* or alt.*. If you top post in de.* (you also need to
>>> write in German for that) they roast you. Not just politely replying like
>>> here. If you don't comply by day 3 or 4 you'll end up in about
>>> everybody's killfile.
>>
>>I don't object to being in the killfiles of small-minded
>>Usenet wokes.
>
>Woke basically means your head isn't inserted into your buttocks.

This is true, woke means that your buttocks have descended around your
head.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219088

On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 21:45:47 -0400, J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 18:24:08 -0500, D.J. <chucktheouch@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>><headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>On 27/09/2021 20:35, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 20:51:37 +0100, gareth evans wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> In groups.io, a similar facility to usenet, top posting predominates.
>>>>
>>>> Probably in comp.* or alt.*. If you top post in de.* (you also need to
>>>> write in German for that) they roast you. Not just politely replying like
>>>> here. If you don't comply by day 3 or 4 you'll end up in about
>>>> everybody's killfile.
>>>
>>>I don't object to being in the killfiles of small-minded
>>>Usenet wokes.
>>
>>Woke basically means your head isn't inserted into your buttocks.
>
>This is true, woke means that your buttocks have descended around your
>head.

Unfortunately, the term "woke" is being smeared by conservatives, and there's
not clear clear consensus on what it means to liberals.  That being said, what's
wrong with treating people of different sexual orientations, or racial and
cultural backgrounds, with the basic respect due any human being?  What's wrong
with addressing people in the manner they wish to be addressed?  What's wrong
with being upset at humor made at the expense of people in some minority, or
that perpetuates negative stereotypes?  What's wrong with condeming statements
that belittle or denigrate others?

It seems to me that not all, but most of the people complaining about "wokeness"
are upset at being called out for acting like an asshole.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219092

On Tue, 28 Sep 2021 13:12:17 GMT
usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:

> Unfortunately, the term "woke" is being smeared by conservatives, and
> there's not clear clear consensus on what it means to liberals.  That
> being said, what's wrong with treating people of different sexual
> orientations, or racial and cultural backgrounds, with the basic respect
> due any human being?  What's wrong with addressing people in the manner
> they wish to be addressed?  What's wrong with being upset at humor made
> at the expense of people in some minority, or that perpetuates negative
> stereotypes?  What's wrong with condeming statements that belittle or
> denigrate others?

	Nothing is wrong with any of that IMHO - my father would have
disagreed with me on several points.

> It seems to me that not all, but most of the people complaining about
> "wokeness" are upset at being called out for acting like an asshole.

	I think it is the "holier than thou" attitude of many users of the
term rather than the principles themselves. As a child of the sixties I do
find it perplexing the extent to which youngsters today seem to think
they invented tolerance but hey the old beatniks probably thought similar
things about us.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219093

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>On Tue, 28 Sep 2021 13:12:17 GMT
>usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, the term "woke" is being smeared by conservatives, and
>> there's not clear clear consensus on what it means to liberals.  That
>> being said, what's wrong with treating people of different sexual
>> orientations, or racial and cultural backgrounds, with the basic respect
>> due any human being?  What's wrong with addressing people in the manner
>> they wish to be addressed?  What's wrong with being upset at humor made
>> at the expense of people in some minority, or that perpetuates negative
>> stereotypes?  What's wrong with condeming statements that belittle or
>> denigrate others?
>
>	Nothing is wrong with any of that IMHO - my father would have
>disagreed with me on several points.
>
>> It seems to me that not all, but most of the people complaining about
>> "wokeness" are upset at being called out for acting like an asshole.
>
>	I think it is the "holier than thou" attitude of many users of the
>term rather than the principles themselves. As a child of the sixties I do
>find it perplexing the extent to which youngsters today seem to think
>they invented tolerance but hey the old beatniks probably thought similar
>things about us.

The _only_ people I've _ever_ heard (or seen in print) using the
term 'woke' have been conservatives using it to denigrate liberals;

I've never seen it used by someone who is supposedly 'woke'.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web