On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 08:36:42 -0500, "" <a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>| Are you replying to the poster calling himself cnerd2025?
>
>yes...he also goes by drew - the name by which i referenced him.
>
>| It's hard
>| to tell, because you failed to use the time-honoured usenet tradition
>| of quoting the text to which you were replying.
>
>actually, it's only "time-honored" in certain contexts.
Yes, and that context is called "usenet".
> *pertainent* text
>should usually be quoted but i was responding to the op's comments
>en-masse...nothing was worth quoting and i used the op's name. that
should
>have been sufficient...especially since i did not say " *Lemming*, you
are
>full of **** and the design of your system will be a bigger hurdle to
>overcome than the actual functionality of your system." the use of his
name
>should have been a dead giveaway.
My new system may or may not be full of ****, but since you weren't
responding to me (or at least, I don't think you were - since you
didn't quote anything it's hard to say) that would appear to be
irrelevant.
>| If you'd like a quick
>| usenet primer please let me know and I'll try to help you out.
>
>i may be misunderstanding you but that just comes with this media. it
sounds
>to me as if you are being sarcastic and/or patronizing. i'll not comment
in
>kind until i know for sure...
Strange - I thought you already had. Yes, it was sarcasm. It's my
normal mode of communication. But since you seem to have difficulty
understanding it, I'll speak in more simple terms.
>owever, i will say that a good news reader
>does wonders with correctly displaying threads in response order, i.e.
tree
>view, etc.
I agree. I use Agent. I see you use Outbreakk Express. Oh, dear.
>if you are electing to use google or some other non-traditional,
>web-based reader you may think about ammending your behavior instead of
>wanting to force others to conform to your choice.
See above.
>i suppose your next "etiquette" tip will be addressing my reluctance to
use
>a ****ft key. ;^)
Not at all. Although it does appear to me that your ;^) key may be
sticking.
My objection was with your failure to quote what you were responding
to. I rarely, if ever, sink so low as to offer anyone a spelling or
punctuation flame.
What you appear to fail to realise is that if you post a reply without
quoting what you are responding to, then it is hard for people to
follow the thread. Not just people reading today, but also those who
are reading next week or even next year. First deja, now Google,
provided a service whereby a thread could be read years after it was
first posted. If someone came across your post a year from now, would
they know what you were talking about, or what you were replying to?
But it gets worse. Usenet is not the web; not everyone gets posts in
the same order. Many users will have read your "reply" before they
read the post you were replying to - some may not have received the
original post at all. By failing to quote the text to which you were
responding, you effectively make your own post useless.
Not everyone uses a broken newsreader like Outlook Express. Try
Agent. You'll be glad you did.
*sigh*. It's always September somewhere on the 'net.
Lemming
--
Curiosity *may* have killed Schrodinger's cat.
|
