Paging Spindrift and [email protected]



M

mb

Guest
Will you two *please* get a clue and quote some text and attributions
when posting and/or replying?

I see you both use google groups; DO NOT click on "reply" when you want
to reply (!). Instead click on "show options" and THEN click reply.

It's not difficult, lots of people can do it. It helps no end when you
include some context in your posts.

--
Mike
 
mb <[email protected]> wrote:

> Will you two *please* get a clue and quote some text and attributions
> when posting and/or replying?

> I see you both use google groups; DO NOT click on "reply" when you want
> to reply (!). Instead click on "show options" and THEN click reply.

> It's not difficult, lots of people can do it. It helps no end when you
> include some context in your posts.

Please, don't encourage these halfwits to make sense. You'll just
annoy them. Just wait until their brains wear out. Shouldn't take
long.

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
 
MB wrote:

'Will you two *please* get a clue and quote some text and attributions
when posting and/or replying?

I see you both use google groups; DO NOT click on "reply" when you want
to reply (!). Instead click on "show options" and THEN click reply.'

To be honest I find the repetitive indented text which this creates
often more a hindrance than a help when trying to read a thread. (That
said I often have used GG as you 'suggest').

If you had mailed me and asked nicely I might have tried to understand
your problem. As it is I really couldn't give a ff what you think and
so will continue to post however I please...
 
On 19 Apr 2006 13:31:47 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>>'Will you two *please* get a clue and quote some text and attributions
>>when posting and/or replying?

>To be honest I find the repetitive indented text which this creates
>often more a hindrance than a help when trying to read a thread.

You find it a hindrance because some people refuse to snip and edit
appropriately, which is what you are being asked to do.

>As it is I really couldn't give a ff what you think and
>so will continue to post however I please...

And refusing, it seems.

"Bob"
--

Email address is spam trapped, to reply directly remove the beverage.
 
On 19/04/2006 21:31, [email protected] said,
> MB wrote:
>
> 'Will you two *please* get a clue and quote some text and attributions
> when posting and/or replying?
>
> I see you both use google groups; DO NOT click on "reply" when you want
> to reply (!). Instead click on "show options" and THEN click reply.'
>
> To be honest I find the repetitive indented text which this creates
> often more a hindrance than a help when trying to read a thread. (That
> said I often have used GG as you 'suggest').

Indented text is a lot easier to read than your last post, and 99.99% or
more usenet users are quite happy with it. The above is unedited apart
from cutting your last paragraph - where does your reply begin and what
"MB wrote" end? That is a rhetorical question BTW, - I have seen the
whole thread so know the answer, but taken in its own right your message
just carries on without any visible distinction between MB's post and
yours. There are certain netiquette standards out there which have
evolved over the last 25 years or so, and I sincerely hope that google
groups aren't going to break the whole thing.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
Paul Boyd wrote:
> On 19/04/2006 21:31, [email protected] said,
> > MB wrote:
> >
> > 'Will you two *please* get a clue and quote some text and attributions
> > when posting and/or replying?
> >
> > I see you both use google groups; DO NOT click on "reply" when you want
> > to reply (!). Instead click on "show options" and THEN click reply.'
> >
> > To be honest I find the repetitive indented text which this creates
> > often more a hindrance than a help when trying to read a thread. (That
> > said I often have used GG as you 'suggest').
>
> Indented text is a lot easier to read than your last post, and 99.99% or
> more usenet users are quite happy with it. The above is unedited apart
> from cutting your last paragraph - where does your reply begin and what
> "MB wrote" end? That is a rhetorical question BTW, - I have seen the
> whole thread so know the answer, but taken in its own right your message
> just carries on without any visible distinction between MB's post and
> yours. There are certain netiquette standards out there which have
> evolved over the last 25 years or so, and I sincerely hope that google
> groups aren't going to break the whole thing.
>
> --
> Paul Boyd
> http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/


Seeing as someone else has commented without reporting to the general
arseyness and downright abuse of 'mb' and Chris Malcom I will take a
look at the 'netiquette' you refer to. I might even look at using a
different new reader. I had thought that the use of quotes might
indicate where a quotation from a previous post begins and ends, but
perhaps things look less clear when not using Google groups.
 
P.s This 'Google groups' thing really does seem to upset some people.
Previously I wasn't aware such issues even existed. I have just had
the following charming comment from Simon Brooke ([email protected])
via e-mail...

'...you're a selfish inconsiderate lout who can't be bothered
to observe the normal conventions of the medium you're using. I'm
getting very close to killfiling everyone who uses Google Groups - it
seems to be the new AOL.'

A case of the medium taking priority over the message perhaps...
 
[email protected] wrote:
> P.s This 'Google groups' thing really does seem to upset some people.
> Previously I wasn't aware such issues even existed.
<snip>
> A case of the medium taking priority over the message perhaps...

I'd say a clear case of the medium increasing the tendency for the
message to be poorly presented, which gets in the way of the message,
which is a Bad Thing.

A subscription to news.individual.net costs a whopping 10 Euros a year
and lets you take groups through a much, much better interface. The
interface makes it much easier for you, and with the more
netiquette-centred formatting of newsreading software it makes it much
easier for anyone reading too. Everybody comes out ahead, in other words.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
>
> Seeing as someone else has commented without reporting to the general
> arseyness and downright abuse of 'mb' and Chris Malcom I will take a
> look at the 'netiquette' you refer to. I might even look at using a
> different new reader. I had thought that the use of quotes might
> indicate where a quotation from a previous post begins and ends, but
> perhaps things look less clear when not using Google groups.
>

Hi Howard (& Spindrift)

Replying the standard Usenet way where text is attributed to author and is
included in a response (as I've done here), does make life much easier in
reading replies to a posting. It gives context and meaning. Having a reply
without seeing some of the post to which it is replying to can sometimes
render the reply useless, as the context is not there and it's not possible
to see whose post is being replied to.

There's been several postings made from posters using google groups that
simply don't make much sense as non-google group users, as the way google
shows posts isn't the 'correct' way following 'nettiquette' which has been
around for years. The 'netiquette' isn't there to be a PITA, but really does
help in getting across context and knowing who and what is being replied to.
It's not the fault of the poster using google groups that google groups
doesn't aid ease of communication the way that 'real' newsreaders do but
it's much appreciated when someone who is using google groups takes the
trouble to do the extra bit google inconsiderately requires a user to do to
make replies completely intelligiable to the rest of us :)

If your ISP doesn't have it's own news server, such as news.randomisp.com
where you can post and view easily using Outlook, Outlook Express, Free
Agent, Agent and the like, a useful and good value alternative is
individual.net

See

http://news.individual.net/


Google is a good search engine, but for newsgroups, it's not good at all.
Not your fault, but I can understand why those using 'proper' Usenet can get
frustrated with postings from google groups. I used google groups for a
short period after AOL got rid of newsgroups and found it intensely
frustrating to use after the ease of 'proper' usenet: even AOL's less than
ideal version of Usenet!

On the plus side, 'proper' news servers on Usenet are incredibly easy to
use - even an old technofule liek wot i is can do it :)

Cheers, helen s
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> P.s This 'Google groups' thing really does seem to upset some people.
> Previously I wasn't aware such issues even existed. I have just had
> the following charming comment from Simon Brooke ([email protected])
> via e-mail...
>
> '...you're a selfish inconsiderate lout who can't be bothered
> to observe the normal conventions of the medium you're using. I'm
> getting very close to killfiling everyone who uses Google Groups - it
> seems to be the new AOL.'
>
> A case of the medium taking priority over the message perhaps...
>

Whilst the reaction above is a tad, well, *extreme*... if you see my post of
the last few minutes, I hope you'll understand the *frustration* using
google groups can induce.

A bit of background in case you aren't aware. Not meant to be teaching
granny to suck eggs - honest.

Usenet and the Internet are two different entities. Usenet has been around a
lot longer than the web. Usenet is a text-based medium used - as you see
here, to send messages quickly to what is basically a mass of groups of
people with common interests. This group happens to be a UK-based cycling
one. Hence uk.rec.cycling Google to not 'own' the group, nor was it set up
by Google (or cyclingforums... but that's another issue...)

Usenet runs on news servers such as news.nameyourisphere.com and is separate
to the Internet and email. It's been around for donkey's years.

Over the years, a system of 'rules' has grown up around Usenet, called
'netiquette' These rules generally help posters understand each other better
in a medium which is text only. In groups sometimes 'netiquette' is rigidly
adhered to, in others, a more flexible approach is what happens.

One thing which really, really does help posters understand each other
*better* is when a post is replied to, that reply contains at least some of
the text of the post it is repsonding to. That way, in a long, drawn-out
topic (thread), it is clear to whose post you are responding and the context
and meaning of the reply is enhanced. Without this, it can easily mean that
it is not clear who you are replying to, what you are replying to and the
context of your message can be watered down and even lost.

It's not the fault of the individual poster using google groups that google
groups does not follow the basic and well-understood 'netiquette' that is
easily and quickly picked up on by posters using normal news readers, but I
can understand the intense frustration posts made via google groups can
induce.

If a poster using google groups takes the time to go the little extra bit
that sadly, google inconsiderately requires a poster to do in order to
render a post easily in context and intelligaible to the rest of us, it is
appreciated. If it doesn't happen, well, posters using google groups do run
the risk of ending up in the kill-files of those who have become
increasingly frustrated with google groups way of dealing with usenet news
groups. That means your posts get ignored or, in frustration, you end up
being the recipient of the usenet equivalent of being yelled at & slapped
down.

Having used both google groups and 'proper' news servers... using google
groups is nowhere near as effective or as convenient as using a 'proper'
news server. Even I can do it! If you ISP doesn't have a news server, which
you can access via Outlook, Outlook Express, Agent, Free Agent... or one of
the many other such things, I suggest a visit to http://news.individual.net/
sign up and see the difference. Personally I'd never go back to google
groups if I can possibly help it. It really, really is sh!te compared to
acccessing newsgroups 'properly' and I say that as a poster and a reader.

Now you do know such issues exist - and they are not about snobbery over
medium - they have direct implications over whether your post is actually
intelligable to people other than google groups users.



Cheers, helen s
 
wafflycat wrote:
> Whilst the reaction above is a tad, well, *extreme*... if you see my post of
> the last few minutes, I hope you'll understand the *frustration* using
> google groups can induce.

Wheras I fing Google Groups mostly fine, and the least worst of several
options.


> A bit of background in case you aren't aware. Not meant to be teaching
> granny to suck eggs - honest.
>
> Usenet and the Internet are two different entities. Usenet has been around a
> lot longer than the web.

POO. The Internet is not the Web. The Internet is the infrastructure
that joins many small networks together into a big global one. Usenet
is a system that utilised the internet (and has done for many decades)
to pass messages between servers.
It is an asynchronous peer to peer message propagation method. There is
no guarantee of delivery and no guarantee of order of messages on a
particular server. It is typically text based, reflectign it's origin.

Becasue of the delocalised nature of the network and method of message
propagation, it is often possible to see the reply to a message before
the message itself.

> Usenet is a text-based medium used - as you see
> here, to send messages quickly to what is basically a mass of groups of
> people with common interests. This group happens to be a UK-based cycling
> one. Hence uk.rec.cycling Google to not 'own' the group, nor was it set up
> by Google (or cyclingforums... but that's another issue...)

It could be said that noone owns the group, group names are essentially
a matter of public consensus and tradition with the appearance of being
centrally controlled.

>
> Usenet runs on news servers such as news.nameyourisphere.com and is separate
> to the Internet and email. It's been around for donkey's years.

Email predates the internet and is really a collective term for
user-targetted message passing methods.

The WWW has been around for a bit over a decade, supplanting previous
link-based systems such as gopher and forums based on that medium tend
to be synchronous and centralised.


> If a poster using google groups takes the time to go the little extra bit
> that sadly, google inconsiderately requires a poster to do in order to
> render a post easily in context and intelligaible to the rest of us, it is
> appreciated.

It is the only quibble I have with GG apart from the lack of a kill
file.
If I could find a similar setup (ie one which didn't require me to
reconfigure every machine I want to use to access it) that works better
then I woudl use it.

...d
 
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 00:32:38 -0700, ukrc wrote:
> A case of the medium taking priority over the message perhaps...

Since you requested private comments by email rather than the public
airing, it sames strange to get upset when a private comment is posted.
And since that comment was "private" you've just crossed another
potential line by posting it here. ;-)

The problem is that the medium can hide the message. When this happens,
the medium is all that is noticeable.

Although the same netiquette should have encouraged mb to prefix the
subject with "OT:".

Jon
 
wafflycat wrote:
> One thing which really, really does help posters understand each other
> *better* is when a post is replied to, that reply contains at least some of
> the text of the post it is repsonding to.


Had a corked Chablis in an Australian bar last night.

When I paid the bill the waitress said:

"Sorry about the wine".


"That's ok"

I said.


"You can't help having an accent".
 
Which of the 2 following quotation blocks is easier to follow?

[email protected] wrote:
> MB wrote:
>
> 'Will you two *please* get a clue and quote some text and attributions
> when posting and/or replying?
>
> I see you both use google groups; DO NOT click on "reply" when you want
> to reply (!). Instead click on "show options" and THEN click reply.'
>
> To be honest I find the repetitive indented text which this creates
> often more a hindrance than a help when trying to read a thread. (That
> said I often have used GG as you 'suggest').
>
> If you had mailed me and asked nicely I might have tried to understand
> your problem. As it is I really couldn't give a ff what you think and
> so will continue to post however I please...

- or -

[email protected] wrote:
> MB wrote:
>
>> 'Will you two *please* get a clue and quote some text and attributions
>> when posting and/or replying?
>>
>> I see you both use google groups; DO NOT click on "reply" when you want
>> to reply (!). Instead click on "show options" and THEN click reply.'
>
> To be honest I find the repetitive indented text which this creates
> often more a hindrance than a help when trying to read a thread. (That
> said I often have used GG as you 'suggest').
>
> If you had mailed me and asked nicely I might have tried to understand
> your problem. As it is I really couldn't give a ff what you think and
> so will continue to post however I please...

Personally I find the second example easier. There is a clear break
between one quotee and the next. This reply is being composed in Google
Groups, incidentally. It only takes a few extra clicks to get round the
obstructions Google has deliberately set up.

It's a pity that you allowed mb to put your back up. I think you should
give a ff, and here's why. The content of your posts is usually highly
relevant and informative. You clearly care about your topic otherwise
you wouldn't go to so much trouble. However, the technical matter of
not quoting conventionally detracts from your posts by making them
harder to follow. I would have thought that you would eagerly embrace
any idea that would make your posts more accessible.

--
Dave...
 
"spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> wafflycat wrote:
>> One thing which really, really does help posters understand each other
>> *better* is when a post is replied to, that reply contains at least some
>> of
>> the text of the post it is repsonding to.
>
>
> Had a corked Chablis in an Australian bar last night.
>
> When I paid the bill the waitress said:
>
> "Sorry about the wine".
>
>
> "That's ok"
>
> I said.
>
>
> "You can't help having an accent".
>

Much better, sweetie - you see, despite your heavy google groups accent, you
are clear ;-)

Cheers, helen s
 
mb wrote:

> I see you both use google groups; DO NOT click on "reply" when you want
> to reply (!). Instead click on "show options" and THEN click reply.
>
> It's not difficult, lots of people can do it. It helps no end when you
> include some context in your posts.

Or you can use this slightly more intuitive method, though it does
require one extra click and response.

Click reply.

Do not type anything in the edit box. Instead, click preview.

You now have a preview of an empty message. Click the edit message
button.

The edit box reappears, but this time containing a fully quoted
message. Before you begin to reply click in the empty line at the top
of the box and press the delete key. (In an act of deliberate vandalism
Google encourage you to top-post.)

Now highlight the quoted signature block at the bottom of the edit box
and press return.

Begin composing your reply.

--
Dave...
 

> The edit box reappears, but this time containing a fully quoted
> message. Before you begin to reply click in the empty line at the top
> of the box and press the delete key. (In an act of deliberate vandalism
> Google encourage you to top-post.)
>
> Now highlight the quoted signature block at the bottom of the edit box
> and press return.
>
> Begin composing your reply.
>
> --

Had an asthma attack the other day.

These three asthmatics attacked me.


Partly my fault- I should have heard them coming.
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> OK, so it seems that I was doing something which ran counter to usenet
> etiquette but rest assured, I am taking on board what has been said by
> the more constructive posters on here. (Thanks especially to Helen).

Most welcome and thank you. I try to be polite... but have been known to
fail miserably on occasion ;-)

Cheers, helen s
 
wafflycat wrote:

> Most welcome and thank you. I try to be polite... but have been known to
> fail miserably on occasion ;-)
>
> Cheers, helen s

Thanks Helen, I found you posts really helpful. By the way is that
excellent article on RLJ's in City Cycling Magzine your work? A fine
article! (Cue the next stream of abuse for 'off topic posting...)
 
wafflycat wrote:
> Google is a good search engine, but for newsgroups, it's not good at all.

I'm still mystified as to what the problem is - can you for example
tell me what's wrong with this post ?

The suspicion remains that the reason some people don't like it is
because they don't like having to pay for something which others are
using for free.

SW.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Paging Brompton owners
Replies
17
Views
219
UK and Europe
Erik Sandblom
E
S
Paging Nick Kew
Replies
0
Views
386
UK and Europe
Simon Brooke
S
T
Paging Dr. De Lacey
Replies
0
Views
299
UK and Europe
Tosspot
T
S
Paging Guy: Wikipedia icon for cycling
Replies
4
Views
358
UK and Europe
Alex
A
A
Alas, Another Blow-Out (Paging James Thomson)
Replies
4
Views
351
UK and Europe
Peter Headland
P
Top Bottom Back