A fundamental flaw with bikes/cycles

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by Default, Jun 7, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tim McNamara

    Tim McNamara Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, Walter Mitty <[email protected]> wrote:

    > AS you may note : I do tend to "bottom post". I'm simply playing devils advocate to hinder self
    > righteous "you know whats".

    Thereby joining our ranks! ;-)
     


  2. Walter Mitty

    Walter Mitty Guest

    Tim McNamara <[email protected]> brightened my day with his incisive wit when in
    news:[email protected] he conjectured that:

    >
    > I understand that the multiplicity of newsreaders and their varying capabilities is what behooves
    > Usenet posters to spend a couple seconds of brain power to post properly, according to the
    > standards and convetions that developed from experience and best practice over the past 20+ years.
    > I realize that's a challenge for over-caffeinated short-attention-span whiz kids.
    >

    Snigger. You still don't get it do you? This whole thread is about you and your obnoxious self
    righteous broom up the butt attitude. Notice how most people that at least defend top posting don't
    actually do it themselves.

    --
    Walter Mitty.
     
  3. Walter Mitty <[email protected]> wrote:
    >Never assume that the reader has the same technology as you. This is why thin clients suffer : the
    >burden of heavy workloads unloaded by stick in the mud posters who believe that their client (read
    >: news reader) is the be all and end all.

    You've got this arse-backwards. I'll bet your distaste for the 80-column convention has an implicit
    "you can always resize your window" in there; that's assuming the reader has the same technology.

    It is those of us who stick to the established minimum capability for newsreaders who respect the
    idea that we don't know what the other guy is reading news with.
    --
    David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
     
  4. Walter Mitty <[email protected]> wrote: [Entire previous article quoted]
    >Do try and keep up Jasper. AS you may note : I do tend to "bottom post".

    Don't you, though. Perhaps in another 20 years you'll learn to quote properly.
    --
    David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
     
  5. Walter Mitty <[email protected]> wrote: [Superseding a particularly ick typo]
    >Snigger. You still don't get it do you? This whole thread is about you and your obnoxious self
    >righteous broom up the butt attitude. Notice how most people that at least defend top posting don't
    >actually do it themselves.

    This is patently untrue. You are the only person defending it who does not do it.
    --
    David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
     
  6. Peter Cole

    Peter Cole Guest

    "David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:aHj*[email protected]...
    > Walter Mitty <[email protected]> wrote:
    >. Notice how most
    > >people that at least defend top posting don't actually do it themselves.
    >
    > This is patently untrue. You are the only person defending it who does not do it.

    I'd much prefer the convention of top posting.
     
  7. On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 03:30:07 +0200, Walter Mitty <[email protected]> wrote:

    >And you have zero understanding of flexible clients?
    >
    >Never assume that the reader has the same technology as you. This is why thin clients suffer : the
    >burden of heavy workloads unloaded by stick in the mud posters who believe that their client (read
    >: news reader) is the be all and end all.

    Why in god's name are you arguing for the opposition?

    The above paragraph pretty concisely spells out *exactly* why you should abide by the standards,
    like not using more than 80 character lines[1] and using proper quoting.

    Jasper

    [1] The two together mean your original text had better be under 76, and better under 72, chracters.
    You need to allow for a few levels of quoting chracters.
     
  8. On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 03:30:08 +0200, Walter Mitty <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Do try and keep up Jasper. AS you may note : I do tend to "bottom post". I'm simply playing devils
    >advocate to hinder self righteous "you know whats".

    No, actually, you're being a prat. Not playing devil's advocate. I know, subtle difference.

    The worst thing is that you're inconsistent about it.

    Jasper
     
  9. Ben Pfaff

    Ben Pfaff Guest

    Jasper Janssen <[email protected]> writes:

    > [1] The two together mean your original text had better be under 76, and better under 72,
    > chracters. You need to allow for a few levels of quoting chracters.

    RFC 1855 recommends 65 characters per line.
     
  10. Tim McNamara

    Tim McNamara Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, Walter Mitty <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Snigger. You still don't get it do you? This whole thread is about you and your obnoxious self
    > righteous broom up the butt attitude.

    You may continue to think so if you wish. Or you might reread the entire thread and notice how it
    started: I made a simple request to someone to not top post. From there the self-righteousness has
    been all yours and the other defenders of top posting. I've just pointed out that there are
    long-standing posting conventions, and there are excellent reasons to adhere to them.
     
  11. Danny

    Danny Guest

    Such as???

    "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > (snip) ..... I've just pointed out that there are long-standing posting conventions, and there
    > are excellent reasons to adhere to them.
     
  12. Cbc

    Cbc Guest

    What nonsense. The only conventions regarding top posting are to be found in the tiny minds of
    arrogant cybercops. Many, many people top post. You're free to do as you like, of course, but please
    don't try to force your prejudices on the rest of us.

    "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>, "alan"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > Damn! Here I was thinking that what someone had to say was the important part, not where they
    > > put it!
    >
    > What they have to say is important, but how they say it is also important. If posters develop
    > these simple skills, that helps the rest of the world understand your point(s) in context. The
    > conventions for posting in Usenet have been in place for 20+ years and developed "organically" for
    > a very good set of reasons.
     
  13. Danny

    Danny Guest

    LOL.. God forbid that there should ever be CHANGE in this world.... I have always top posted and
    found it to be "organic" for me.

    Personally, I think it stupid to have to sift through posts to try an find what the latest poster
    had to say..

    I guess that my brain just works on a level where some things are easiily understood without having
    to be continually reminded.

    When I post in reponse to a general theme, (such as this), I top post.. When answering specific
    points, I answer, (or comment), by line.

    (actually I like to see small people get their panties in a bind over something trivial). ;-)

    Danny

    "cbc" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > What nonsense. The only conventions regarding top posting are to be found in the tiny minds of
    > arrogant cybercops. Many, many people top post. You're free to do as you like, of course, but
    > please don't try to force
    your
    > prejudices on the rest of us.
    >
    >
    > "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > In article <[email protected]>, "alan"
    > > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > > Damn! Here I was thinking that what someone had to say was the important part, not where they
    > > > put it!
    > >
    > > What they have to say is important, but how they say it is also important. If posters develop
    > > these simple skills, that helps the rest of the world understand your point(s) in context. The
    > > conventions for posting in Usenet have been in place for 20+ years and developed "organically"
    > > for a very good set of reasons.
     
  14. F. Golightly

    F. Golightly Guest

    Think about where a curser is/was placed on a DOS based OS twenty years ago. The machine dictated
    bottom "bottom" posting not some agreed upon protocol.

    In this case bottom posting is more habit than anything else.

    hth

    > > conventions for posting in Usenet have been in place for 20+ years and developed "organically"
    > > for a very good set of reasons.
     
  15. Danny

    Danny Guest

    LOL.. You just went and wasted some long-held beliefs some of these folks had.. They will wake
    tomorrow feeling cheated and vindictive... (and I'm still laughing.. )

    Danny

    "F. Golightly" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Think about where a curser is/was placed on a DOS based OS twenty years
    ago.
    > The machine dictated bottom "bottom" posting not some agreed upon
    protocol.
    >
    > In this case bottom posting is more habit than anything else.
    >
    > hth
    >
    > > > conventions for posting in Usenet have been in place for 20+ years and developed "organically"
    > > > for a very good set of reasons.
    >
     
  16. In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    > Think about where a curser is/was placed on a DOS based OS twenty years ago. The machine dictated
    > bottom "bottom" posting not some agreed upon protocol.

    The editor was vi, the OS wasn't DOS, and the cursor started at the top of the screen so you could
    trim your quote before adding your own material below it.

    There was no standard at first, but quoting included text evolved quickly, followed by the standard
    of putting the statement before the response to the statement, since that makes more sense than
    listening to a conversation backwards.

    There was some top-posting in the beginning, but it quickly lost favor because it was harder to read
    and harder to quote properly in prolonged threads.

    --
    [email protected] is Joshua Putnam <http://www.phred.org/~josh/> Books for Bicycle Mechanics and
    Tinkerers: <http://www.phred.org/~josh/bike/bikebooks.html
     
  17. . When it comes to the same old, depressing, argument about top/bottom posting, the self-appinted
    police who wish to impose their actions on the rest of the net never consider those of us whose
    eyesight forces the need for text-to-speech programs. Using bottom posting with one of those means
    having to sit through countless repetitions of the same points of view which have been amassed
    during the life of the thread. You want to try it. (Correction - you DON'T want to try it.)

    If you are joining a well-establshed thread, it's always going to be a fact of life that you will
    need some time/hunting to get the drift. If you have been with the thread from the beginning, top
    posting is kinder all round.

    >LOL.. You just went and wasted some long-held beliefs some of these folks had.. They will wake
    >tomorrow feeling cheated and vindictive... (and I'm still laughing.. )
    >
    >Danny
    >
    >
    >"F. Golightly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> Think about where a curser is/was placed on a DOS based OS twenty years
    >ago.
    >> The machine dictated bottom "bottom" posting not some agreed upon
    >protocol.
    >>
    >> In this case bottom posting is more habit than anything else.
    >>
    >> hth
    >>
    >> > > conventions for posting in Usenet have been in place for 20+ years and developed
    >> > > "organically" for a very good set of reasons.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
     
  18. On 12 Jun 2003 10:20:00 -0700, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote:
    >Jasper Janssen <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    >> [1] The two together mean your original text had better be under 76, and better under 72,
    >> chracters. You need to allow for a few levels of quoting chracters.
    >
    >RFC 1855 recommends 65 characters per line.

    That sounds overly conservative. Very rarely do I see people recommending under 72 or 70. Nothing
    wronmg with being overly conservative, per se, but you should know that that's what you're doing.
    Also depends how good the groups you write in are about snipping -- very rarely do you really need
    more than three levels of quoting. 65 characters allows for cascades.

    Jasper
     
  19. cbc <[email protected]> top-posted:
    >What nonsense. The only conventions regarding top posting are to be found in the tiny minds of
    >arrogant cybercops. Many, many people top post. You're free to do as you like, of course, but
    >please don't try to force your prejudices on the rest of us.

    You're free to do as you like, but ultimately if you're posting so people can read it, you'd better
    be prepared to deal with the fact that the more experienced and knowledgeable Usenet posters aren't
    going to bother.
    --
    David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
     
  20. Bob

    Bob Guest

    I top post or bottom post, depending on what the other person did. Sometimes, I'll top post simply
    because someone can get the gist without reading the stuff at the bottom. For instance, you already
    know what the rest of this pertains to, even though you've not read past my post. If you want more
    detail concerning the battle about top posting, read on...

    --
    Bob

    "cbc" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > What nonsense. The only conventions regarding top posting are to be found in the tiny minds of
    > arrogant cybercops. Many, many people top post. You're free to do as you like, of course, but
    > please don't try to force
    your
    > prejudices on the rest of us.
    >
    >
    > "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > In article <[email protected]>, "alan"
    > > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > > Damn! Here I was thinking that what someone had to say was the important part, not where they
    > > > put it!
    > >
    > > What they have to say is important, but how they say it is also important. If posters develop
    > > these simple skills, that helps the rest of the world understand your point(s) in context. The
    > > conventions for posting in Usenet have been in place for 20+ years and developed "organically"
    > > for a very good set of reasons.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...