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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #161394 > unrolled thread

OT: reply styles, family matters

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  OT: reply styles, family matters Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com> - 2015-12-01 02:40 +0100
    Re: OT: reply styles, family matters John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-12-01 03:00 +0100
      Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Stuart Longland <stuartl@longlandclan.id.au> - 2015-12-02 05:30 +0100
        Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-12-02 20:50 +0100
          Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Erwan David <erwan@rail.eu.org> - 2015-12-02 20:50 +0100
            Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-12-03 01:40 +0100
              Re: OT: reply styles, family matters "Neal P. Murphy" <neal.p.murphy@alum.wpi.edu> - 2015-12-03 03:50 +0100
                Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 05:30 +0100
                Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2015-12-03 09:10 +0100
                  Re: OT: reply styles, family matters <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-12-03 09:30 +0100
          Re: OT: reply styles, family matters John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-12-02 21:10 +0100
            Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 21:40 +0100
          Re: OT: reply styles, family matters <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-12-02 22:20 +0100
        Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 02:00 +0100
    Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Stephen Powell <zlinuxman@wowway.com> - 2015-12-01 03:20 +0100
      Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com> - 2015-12-01 04:50 +0100
    Re: OT: reply styles, family matters "Neal P. Murphy" <neal.p.murphy@alum.wpi.edu> - 2015-12-01 03:30 +0100
      Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Mike Castle <dalgoda+debian@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 04:10 +0100
      Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-12-01 15:20 +0100
    Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2015-12-01 09:30 +0100
    Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 10:10 +0100
      Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 10:20 +0100
        Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com> - 2015-12-01 15:30 +0100
    Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-12-01 15:30 +0100
      Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com> - 2015-12-01 17:40 +0100
        Re: OT: reply styles, family matters anxiousmac@gmail.com - 2015-12-01 18:30 +0100
          Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com> - 2015-12-01 22:00 +0100
        Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 11:30 +0100
          Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com> - 2015-12-02 18:20 +0100
            Re: OT: reply styles, family matters Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 21:40 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#161394 — OT: reply styles, family matters

I have a roughly forty year old nephew who uses email as a 
vehicle for political and philosophical discussion. His father 
is named Dave Bernstein, but not the same Dave Bernstein who 
teaches law at George Mason and recently came out with a book, 
_Lawless_, which looks at the current prez's penchant for um 
shall we say um "improvising" on the limits of the chief 
executive's powers. You get the drift I'm sure.

So I sent my nephew a review of the book that I found in 
_Commentary_, a fairly conservative organ of opinion. I headed 
the email with the subject line "DAVE BERNSTEIN HAS A NEW BOOK 
OUT" in order to tweak his curiosity. It worked. He treated me 
to a spirited reply, rather long too for him, but concluded it 
with this thought:

"Please don't respond line by line. It is patronizing and
annoying."

I have acquired over the years a habit of carefully quoting and 
replying to those quoted snippets. But it rubs some in my family 
the wrong way. They don't see it as part and parcel of effective 
communication, or as, at bottom, simply good netiquette. They 
feel talked down to. My nephew's father had the same problem 
with me years ago but I think I have brought him around over 
time so that he no longer "takes it personal."

With that as background, here is my question/request: is anyone 
aware of a spirited defence of our ideal method of "selective 
quoting," (for lack of a better label) one, say, that perhaps 
has achieved the status of a "net classic?" Surely some 'net 
genius has dealt these nay-sayers, who seem to LIKE top-posting, 
a solid uppercut?

Thanks,

-- 
Bob Bernstein

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#161395

Bob Bernstein writes:
> With that as background, here is my question/request: is anyone aware
> of a spirited defence of our ideal method of "selective quoting," (for
> lack of a better label) one, say, that perhaps has achieved the status
> of a "net classic?" Surely some 'net genius has dealt these
> nay-sayers, who seem to LIKE top-posting, a solid uppercut?

Waste of effort.  The usual reason for top-posting (or bottom-posting
without editing) is laziness.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

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

#161447

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 01/12/15 11:56, John Hasler wrote:
> Bob Bernstein writes:
>> With that as background, here is my question/request: is anyone aware
>> of a spirited defence of our ideal method of "selective quoting," (for
>> lack of a better label) one, say, that perhaps has achieved the status
>> of a "net classic?" Surely some 'net genius has dealt these
>> nay-sayers, who seem to LIKE top-posting, a solid uppercut?
> 
> Waste of effort.  The usual reason for top-posting (or bottom-posting
> without editing) is laziness.
> 

I often counter that by passing my would-be reply through tac and
top-post it that way.

Then they see it from my perspective.
-- 
Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter, VK4MSL)

I haven't lost my mind...
  ...it's backed up on a tape somewhere.

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

#161472

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 02:21:04PM +1000, Stuart Longland wrote:
> 
> I often counter that by passing my would-be reply through tac and
> top-post it that way.
> 
> Then they see it from my perspective.

What is 'tac'?

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X

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

#161473

Le 02/12/2015 20:41, Chris Bannister a écrit :
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 02:21:04PM +1000, Stuart Longland wrote:
>> I often counter that by passing my would-be reply through tac and
>> top-post it that way.
>>
>> Then they see it from my perspective.
> What is 'tac'?
>
TAC(1)                                                                           
User
Commands                                                                           
TAC(1)

NAME
       tac - concatenate and print files in reverse

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

#161487

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:47:00PM +0100, Erwan David wrote:
> Le 02/12/2015 20:41, Chris Bannister a écrit :
> > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 02:21:04PM +1000, Stuart Longland wrote:
> >> I often counter that by passing my would-be reply through tac and
> >> top-post it that way.
> >>
> >> Then they see it from my perspective.
> > What is 'tac'?
> >
> TAC(1)                                                                           
> User
> Commands                                                                           
> TAC(1)
> 
> NAME
>        tac - concatenate and print files in reverse

Ahh! So you can feed mp3s through it and listen for any messages from
the devil, no doubt. :)

Thanks everyone for the info.

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X

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

#161491

On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 13:34:58 +1300
Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:47:00PM +0100, Erwan David wrote:
> > Le 02/12/2015 20:41, Chris Bannister a écrit :
> > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 02:21:04PM +1000, Stuart Longland wrote:
> > >> I often counter that by passing my would-be reply through tac and
> > >> top-post it that way.
> > >>
> > >> Then they see it from my perspective.
> > > What is 'tac'?
> > >
> > TAC(1)                                                                           
> > User
> > Commands                                                                           
> > TAC(1)
> > 
> > NAME
> >        tac - concatenate and print files in reverse
> 
> Ahh! So you can feed mp3s through it and listen for any messages from
> the devil, no doubt. :)

tac only prints in reverse line order.

You have to print the file in reverse bit order for that to work. :)

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

#161495

	Hi.

On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 21:42:40 -0500
"Neal P. Murphy" <neal.p.murphy@alum.wpi.edu> wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 13:34:58 +1300
> Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:47:00PM +0100, Erwan David wrote:
> > > Le 02/12/2015 20:41, Chris Bannister a écrit :
> > > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 02:21:04PM +1000, Stuart Longland wrote:
> > > >> I often counter that by passing my would-be reply through tac and
> > > >> top-post it that way.
> > > >>
> > > >> Then they see it from my perspective.
> > > > What is 'tac'?
> > > >
> > > TAC(1)                                                                           
> > > User
> > > Commands                                                                           
> > > TAC(1)
> > > 
> > > NAME
> > >        tac - concatenate and print files in reverse
> > 
> > Ahh! So you can feed mp3s through it and listen for any messages from
> > the devil, no doubt. :)
> 
> tac only prints in reverse line order.
> 
> You have to print the file in reverse bit order for that to work. :)

And for this task they give "sox reverse" in Debian.

If only such trick could be used for video too - that would be
awesome :)

Reco

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

#161503

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Le duodi 12 frimaire, an CCXXIV, Neal P. Murphy a écrit :
> You have to print the file in reverse bit order for that to work. :)

Nitpick: in reverse SAMPLE order. If you play the file in reverse bit order,
you will get the low-order bits white noise with maximum volume, making it
complete garbage.

And of course, this is for PCM. For MP3, reversing the bit order or the
octet order would result in unplayable garbage, since MP3 or any compressed
codec has some internal structure. It would probably be possible to write a
bitstream filter capable of reversing the order of the samples in a MP3
frame, that would probably make an interesting waste of time for a competent
hacker. It would probably not be possible for Opus, though.

Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George

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

#161505

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 09:07:42AM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
> Le duodi 12 frimaire, an CCXXIV, Neal P. Murphy a écrit :
> > You have to print the file in reverse bit order for that to work. :)
> 
[...]

> And of course, this is for PCM. For MP3, reversing the bit order or the
> octet order [...]

Woah, woah. Palyndrome Opus (bit or bytewise). Must resist, gotta work
to do...

:-)

- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlZf9A4ACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZiwQCeNDgFjOG8zpNFZhDAwkMvlSuZ
tfsAn0s9rfXoSIkRDmzx7jBKdqVdL3Dm
=OkYw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#161474

Chris Bannister writes:
What is 'tac'?

DESCRIPTION
       Write each FILE to standard output, last line first.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

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

#161475

On 12/02/2015 03:03 PM, John Hasler wrote:
> Chris Bannister writes:
> What is 'tac'?
>
> DESCRIPTION
>         Write each FILE to standard output, last line first.

That's the beauty of UNIX. They have thought of everything you could 
ever possibly need, including backwards printing. :/ Ric



-- 
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html

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

#161478

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 08:41:44AM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 02:21:04PM +1000, Stuart Longland wrote:
> > 
> > I often counter that by passing my would-be reply through tac and
> > top-post it that way.
> > 
> > Then they see it from my perspective.
> 
> What is 'tac'?

Properly answered by others; just a little addendum: like 'cat' but
backwards :-)

- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlZfV1kACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZ0/wCfaF0XtymMDO3XGCu2yFSlurDw
1z8AnjKWWWZZ1tmEBOebATrvB6WW+PYa
=GnZW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#161488

On Wednesday 02 December 2015 04:21:04 Stuart Longland wrote:
> On 01/12/15 11:56, John Hasler wrote:
> > Bob Bernstein writes:
> >> With that as background, here is my question/request: is anyone aware
> >> of a spirited defence of our ideal method of "selective quoting," (for
> >> lack of a better label) one, say, that perhaps has achieved the status
> >> of a "net classic?" Surely some 'net genius has dealt these
> >> nay-sayers, who seem to LIKE top-posting, a solid uppercut?
> >
> > Waste of effort.  The usual reason for top-posting (or bottom-posting
> > without editing) is laziness.
>
> I often counter that by passing my would-be reply through tac and
> top-post it that way.
>
> Then they see it from my perspective.

That is brilliant!!  I can'tr wait to try it on a desreving recipient.

Now, has anyone got an equivalent to impose on People who WILL send HTML?

Lisi

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

#161397

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 20:31:29 -0500 (EST), Bob Bernstein wrote:
> ...
> With that as background, here is my question/request: is anyone 
> aware of a spirited defence of our ideal method of "selective 
> quoting," (for lack of a better label) one, say, that perhaps 
> has achieved the status of a "net classic?" Surely some 'net 
> genius has dealt these nay-sayers, who seem to LIKE top-posting, 
> a solid uppercut?

How about this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style ?

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

#161400

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015, Stephen Powell wrote:

> How about this one: 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style ?

That may be a great place for me to start.

After skimming it my sense was the author was bending over 
backwards to be "fair," i.e. inflating the supposed virtues of 
top and bottom posting styles. I don't see any a priori need to 
impose moral equivalence on these different styles.

Hmmm...I don't seem to be exactly neutral on this question. Oh 
well.


-- 
Bob Bernstein

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

#161398

I'll top-post here because I am replying to the entire message (quoted below).

Whether you top-post, in-post or bottom-post depends on the nature of that to which you reply.

When you reply to and critique an essay, you would likely reply in top-post form and leave the essay at the bottom so that readers, whom you may safely assume have already read it, may conveniently reference it.

When you reply and critique technical matter, you would typically reply in in-post form and reply to individual items. But on another paw, if you are proof-reading the essay, the you must reply in in-post form so that the author knows to which pieces your comments apply.

The difference is that an essay can be considered a single thought and should be replied to as a whole. Conversely, technical matters are a collection of thoughts; it is better to reply to each item so that the author, again, knows to which items your comments apply.

N

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 20:31:29 -0500 (EST)
Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com> wrote:

> I have a roughly forty year old nephew who uses email as a 
> vehicle for political and philosophical discussion. His father 
> is named Dave Bernstein, but not the same Dave Bernstein who 
> teaches law at George Mason and recently came out with a book, 
> _Lawless_, which looks at the current prez's penchant for um 
> shall we say um "improvising" on the limits of the chief 
> executive's powers. You get the drift I'm sure.
> 
> So I sent my nephew a review of the book that I found in 
> _Commentary_, a fairly conservative organ of opinion. I headed 
> the email with the subject line "DAVE BERNSTEIN HAS A NEW BOOK 
> OUT" in order to tweak his curiosity. It worked. He treated me 
> to a spirited reply, rather long too for him, but concluded it 
> with this thought:
> 
> "Please don't respond line by line. It is patronizing and
> annoying."
> 
> I have acquired over the years a habit of carefully quoting and 
> replying to those quoted snippets. But it rubs some in my family 
> the wrong way. They don't see it as part and parcel of effective 
> communication, or as, at bottom, simply good netiquette. They 
> feel talked down to. My nephew's father had the same problem 
> with me years ago but I think I have brought him around over 
> time so that he no longer "takes it personal."
> 
> With that as background, here is my question/request: is anyone 
> aware of a spirited defence of our ideal method of "selective 
> quoting," (for lack of a better label) one, say, that perhaps 
> has achieved the status of a "net classic?" Surely some 'net 
> genius has dealt these nay-sayers, who seem to LIKE top-posting, 
> a solid uppercut?
> 
> Thanks,
> 

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

#161399

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Neal P. Murphy
<neal.p.murphy@alum.wpi.edu> wrote:
> When you reply to and critique an essay, you would likely reply in top-post form and leave the essay at the bottom so that readers, whom you may safely assume have already read it, may conveniently reference it.


I don't think you can ever safely assume that anyone as read it.
That is why top-posting is always frowned upon.

mrc

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

#161415

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 09:27:02PM -0500, Neal P. Murphy wrote:
> I'll top-post here because I am replying to the entire message (quoted below).

Sorry to be picky, but there was nothing in the text to which you
directly replied to. 

I think personal correspondence is completely different to posting and
replying on a mailing list where it is presumed that posters are using
and familiar with a thread capable mail client.

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X

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

#161405

Le decadi 10 frimaire, an CCXXIV, Bob Bernstein a écrit :
> With that as background, here is my question/request: is anyone aware of a
> spirited defence of our ideal method of "selective quoting," (for lack of a
> better label) one, say, that perhaps has achieved the status of a "net
> classic?" Surely some 'net genius has dealt these nay-sayers, who seem to
> LIKE top-posting, a solid uppercut?

I do not have a pointer to that kind of text, but I have found this analogy
rather relevant:

When you watch a TV series episode, does it end with an announce "Previously
in $series" and the full rerun of the last episode?

Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web