B
Bill Z.
Guest
Rick Onanian <[email protected]> writes:
> >Rick Onanian <[email protected]> writes:
> I haven't gone back and studied the Rick vs. Frank helmet war of
> 2003, but I came away believing that his reasoning was sound. I
> could be remembering a more rosy picture than reality, but it's more
> likely that his reasoning evolved between his old arguments with you
> and the time he spent on me.
>
> I suspect that it's even more likely that you're showing similar
> characteristics regarding Frank as you are regarding Sorni. I think
> it's you, not the rest of the world.
It is neither me nor the rest of the world. There were a few anti-
helmet people didn't like any statement that was not 100% anti-helmet.
I disagreed with them, but so did others.
> >I'd rather not see propaganda.
>
> Me neither...but it beats another fruitless helmet war.
>
> >It distracts from rational dicussions.
>
> What, like this one? Don't you suppose a helmet war would distract
> from this discussion (regardless of how rational it may be)?
Now you are babbling.
> >> No, his complaint is about what you failed to snip.
> >
> >What I didn't snip did not change the attribution of any quoted
> >text, which is what he claimed.
>
> I'll note that you didn't address my example of similar technique
> that is within the rules but could be obfuscatory for some.
You didn't give any example that at all matched.
> >One of the reasons for the usenet standard for quoting was to make it
> >readable by both machines and by people, to aid in such tasks as
> >archving, where you might want to search for a keyword someone used,
> >as opposed to a keyword someone quoted another poster as using.
>
> That's why there's "From:" headers.
You missed the point. The "from" header tells who sent a message, and
that message typically contains text from that poster and possibly
text that poster quoted from another poster's message. Distinguishing
quotes of what you are replying to (provided for context) from what
you are saying is useful, partciularly when other software provides a
search capability. For example, if person A uses the word "foo" and B
replies to that post, and does not snip the quoted lines containing
"foo," someone searching for "foo" might want to get A's posts but not
B's.
> >Normal English quoting conventions are ambigous. For instance, if I
> <irrelevance snipped>
>
> You don't seem to mind ambiguity, as long as it's within your
> interpretation of rules.
You missed the point again, as there is *no* ambiguity within the
rules I was referring to.
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
> >Rick Onanian <[email protected]> writes:
> I haven't gone back and studied the Rick vs. Frank helmet war of
> 2003, but I came away believing that his reasoning was sound. I
> could be remembering a more rosy picture than reality, but it's more
> likely that his reasoning evolved between his old arguments with you
> and the time he spent on me.
>
> I suspect that it's even more likely that you're showing similar
> characteristics regarding Frank as you are regarding Sorni. I think
> it's you, not the rest of the world.
It is neither me nor the rest of the world. There were a few anti-
helmet people didn't like any statement that was not 100% anti-helmet.
I disagreed with them, but so did others.
> >I'd rather not see propaganda.
>
> Me neither...but it beats another fruitless helmet war.
>
> >It distracts from rational dicussions.
>
> What, like this one? Don't you suppose a helmet war would distract
> from this discussion (regardless of how rational it may be)?
Now you are babbling.
> >> No, his complaint is about what you failed to snip.
> >
> >What I didn't snip did not change the attribution of any quoted
> >text, which is what he claimed.
>
> I'll note that you didn't address my example of similar technique
> that is within the rules but could be obfuscatory for some.
You didn't give any example that at all matched.
> >One of the reasons for the usenet standard for quoting was to make it
> >readable by both machines and by people, to aid in such tasks as
> >archving, where you might want to search for a keyword someone used,
> >as opposed to a keyword someone quoted another poster as using.
>
> That's why there's "From:" headers.
You missed the point. The "from" header tells who sent a message, and
that message typically contains text from that poster and possibly
text that poster quoted from another poster's message. Distinguishing
quotes of what you are replying to (provided for context) from what
you are saying is useful, partciularly when other software provides a
search capability. For example, if person A uses the word "foo" and B
replies to that post, and does not snip the quoted lines containing
"foo," someone searching for "foo" might want to get A's posts but not
B's.
> >Normal English quoting conventions are ambigous. For instance, if I
> <irrelevance snipped>
>
> You don't seem to mind ambiguity, as long as it's within your
> interpretation of rules.
You missed the point again, as there is *no* ambiguity within the
rules I was referring to.
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB