Re: Is RCN Outsourced to India or Something??



E

Edward Dolan

Guest
"Mike Kruger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "bryanska" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> >WTF is up with the constant there/their-its/it's-car's/cars mess??????

>>
>> Apostrophe usage in this country is down the tubes. Especially with
>> acronyms.
>>
>> If Newsgroups is abbreviated NG, then...
>>
>> NG's is possesive. Something belongs to the newsgroup.
>>
>> NGs is plural. More than one newsgroup.
>>
>> IT IS THAT SIMPLE, but even professional sign makers are clueless...
>>

> No. It's not that simple. So far as I learned it, the plural of NG is
> NG's. The plurals of abbreviations and acronyms use an apostrophe before
> the s. I always use this in my writing, and as this is technical
> specifications there are lots of abbreviations and acrynoms, such as UPC's
> and EAN's. I've never had this questioned even though I work with a bunch
> of nitpickers.
>
> I shouldn't have to reference this basic bit of junior high English, but
> since you will probably insist I will refer you to:
> http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutspelling/pizza
>
> There's an extensive discussion of this topic (including indications that
> the rule can be either NGs or NG's) at
> http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=499296


I will admit that NGs just does not look right. I always want to put an
apostrophe before the s too when writing the plural for an acronym. And then
someone will point out to me that only the possessive takes an apostrophe.
But like I said, it just doesn't look right.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
N

NYC XYZ

Guest
NGs = News Groups or, more correctly, Newsgroups. I think that's
better-looking than all those apostrophes all over.

And top-posting is fine, too.



Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>
> I will admit that NGs just does not look right. I always want to put an
> apostrophe before the s too when writing the plural for an acronym. And then
> someone will point out to me that only the possessive takes an apostrophe.
> But like I said, it just doesn't look right.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
E

Edward Dolan

Guest
"NYC XYZ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> NGs = News Groups or, more correctly, Newsgroups. I think that's
> better-looking than all those apostrophes all over.
>
> And top-posting is fine, too.


Top posting is never fine. It is an abomination and done only by thorough
going idiots like yourself. Try to get up to speed why don't you?

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
N

NYC XYZ

Guest
As you were!

Top-posting looks better sometimes, and makes more logical sense when
all you have for a response is a few lines at most. Also, some folks
don't want to scroll all the way down in order to read the response,
especially if they've been following the conversation all along and/or
the post which is being replied to is a long one.


Dismissed!



Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>
> Top posting is never fine. It is an abomination and done only by thorough
> going idiots like yourself. Try to get up to speed why don't you?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
E

Edward Dolan

Guest
"NYC XYZ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> As you were!
>
> Top-posting looks better sometimes, and makes more logical sense when
> all you have for a response is a few lines at most. Also, some folks
> don't want to scroll all the way down in order to read the response,
> especially if they've been following the conversation all along and/or
> the post which is being replied to is a long one.
>
>
> Dismissed!


No, there is no excuse for top posting. If only a few lines are involved,
then you need only quote a few lines from the previous message. However, it
you are responding to the previous message in toto, then the entire previous
message must be quoted. There is no other way.

You are confusing Usenet with email. That is because you have not recognized
that Usenet relates to a group and not to a single individual. Since a group
is involved, you must provide as much information as possible in a logical
manner in each and every posting so that they will understand what is being
said. I show consideration for the group by insisting on top posting. You
show contempt for the group by posting otherwise.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota



> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>
>> Top posting is never fine. It is an abomination and done only by thorough
>> going idiots like yourself. Try to get up to speed why don't you?
 
M

Mike Rice

Guest
On 15 Mar 2006 19:17:02 -0800, "NYC XYZ" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>As you were!
>
>Top-posting looks better sometimes, and makes more logical sense when
>all you have for a response is a few lines at most.


Top-posting may look better to you but can be more difficult for the
reader to follow. Top -posting forces one to scroll past your response
and search the quoted text to be reminded of the issue you are
addressing.

Even worse, many top-posters omit any quoted text, leaving the reader
to wonder what in the world they are referring.

>Also, some folks
>don't want to scroll all the way down in order to read the response,
>especially if they've been following the conversation all along and/or
>the post which is being replied to is a long one.


No neeed to keep the entire body of a long evolving thread. Judicious
snippage, while retaining the issue(s) at hand make for a better
discourse. These Usenet conventions have evolved to facilitate
communmication, but are more guidlines than rules.

If, for example, one's purpose were to annoy a certian egocentric
poster then top-posting may be appropriate.

Indiana Mike


>
>
>Dismissed!
>
>
>
>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>
>> Top posting is never fine. It is an abomination and done only by thorough
>> going idiots like yourself. Try to get up to speed why don't you?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>> aka
>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
N

NYC XYZ

Guest
Mike Rice wrote:
>
>
> Top-posting may look better to you but can be more difficult for the
> reader to follow. Top -posting forces one to scroll past your response
> and search the quoted text to be reminded of the issue you are
> addressing.


I don't even think of it as an inconvenience. If one walked into the
middle of a conversation, it's up to oneself to put two and two
together to get up to speed on things if one is really interested.
Likewise, skimming a thread to follow its course up until the present
moment isn't too much to ask of oneself, given one's curiosity. Me
myself, I typically start at the beginning anyway, with the original
post.

> Even worse, many top-posters omit any quoted text, leaving the reader
> to wonder what in the world they are referring.


Why sit in the dark and complain about it? Turn on the light -- scroll
up to the previous post, etc.

> No neeed to keep the entire body of a long evolving thread. Judicious
> snippage, while retaining the issue(s) at hand make for a better
> discourse. These Usenet conventions have evolved to facilitate
> communmication, but are more guidlines than rules.


Indeed, because I think the reader should provide such "contexts"
themselves. It's like "Letters to the Editor" -- get the back-issue if
you're interested in what the writer's complaining about.

> If, for example, one's purpose were to annoy a certian egocentric
> poster then top-posting may be appropriate.


Truly! But I don't think he's annoyed so much as amused. I suspect
he's even rather flattered by the attention devoted to him. Ed Dolan
needs his own talk show! "Next up...'Catholic Recumbent Cyclists and
The Sexual Politics of Gourmet Dining!'"

> Indiana Mike
 
E

Edward Dolan

Guest
"NYC XYZ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Mike Rice wrote:
>>
>>
>> Top-posting may look better to you but can be more difficult for the
>> reader to follow. Top -posting forces one to scroll past your response
>> and search the quoted text to be reminded of the issue you are
>> addressing.

>
> I don't even think of it as an inconvenience. If one walked into the
> middle of a conversation, it's up to oneself to put two and two
> together to get up to speed on things if one is really interested.
> Likewise, skimming a thread to follow its course up until the present
> moment isn't too much to ask of oneself, given one's curiosity. Me
> myself, I typically start at the beginning anyway, with the original
> post.


NYC, no one else will do what you do. Trust me on this. Hells Bells, I won't
even do it. Most Usenet messages simply do not repay any research or
trouble. Fully 90% of all posts are done by idiots for idiots. We all have
very short attention spans and are usually in one hell of a sour mood
besides. So do it right for Christ's sakes!

>> Even worse, many top-posters omit any quoted text, leaving the reader
>> to wonder what in the world they are referring.

>
> Why sit in the dark and complain about it? Turn on the light -- scroll
> up to the previous post, etc.


If you do it right it makes it easy. If you do it wrong, it makes it hard
and many will not bother with you. And why the hell should they. You have
announced yourself as an idiot by not posting right. Therefore, you can go
screw yourself!

>> No neeed to keep the entire body of a long evolving thread. Judicious
>> snippage, while retaining the issue(s) at hand make for a better
>> discourse. These Usenet conventions have evolved to facilitate
>> communmication, but are more guidlines than rules.

>
> Indeed, because I think the reader should provide such "contexts"
> themselves. It's like "Letters to the Editor" -- get the back-issue if
> you're interested in what the writer's complaining about.


Just how dumb and screwed up are you anyway! This is not letters to the
editor, this is Usenet. Damn it all to hell, we are lazy and will not look
up anything - ever!

>> If, for example, one's purpose were to annoy a certian egocentric
>> poster then top-posting may be appropriate.

>
> Truly! But I don't think he's annoyed so much as amused. I suspect
> he's even rather flattered by the attention devoted to him. Ed Dolan
> needs his own talk show! "Next up...'Catholic Recumbent Cyclists and
> The Sexual Politics of Gourmet Dining!'"


No, I want you to post as Indiana Mike and I say you should. You show
rudeness and contempt for the reader and the entire group by not doing it
the right way.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 

Similar threads

M
Replies
4
Views
1K
T