looking for hardware source

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:28:52 -0500, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
and CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> instead replied:

>Ray Haddad wrote:
>> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> replied:
>>> msg wrote:
>>>
>>>... snip ...
>>>>
>>>> Banning html from text-only newsgroups is a _great_ idea however.
>>>
>>> It already is banned.  The better newsreaders can be told not to
>>> display it.
>> 
>> Sadly, you can't "ban" html because it's text. That's all it is.
>
>However, you can tell it from most pure text.  Similarly you can
>tell text from arbitrary binary, most of the time.  These things
>revolve around the definition of a 'bit', from which we can derive
>definitions for 'byte', 'line', 'record', etc.
>
>You are probably not aware that the better news-servers (generally
>European) will simply discard html messages.  It is quite
>effective.

Which brings us to the concept that all compliance here for any form
of posting is voluntary or based on the whim of the person posting.
No amount of posturing or pointing to a Request For Comments (RFC)
is going to make a bit of difference. Top, middle or bottom. HTML or
plain text. Binary or not, the choice is clearly up to the voluntary
compliance of everyone here, each to his or her own.
--
Ray

Ray Haddad wrote:
> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> replied:
>> Ray Haddad wrote:
>>> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> replied:
>>>> msg wrote:
>>>>
>>>>... snip ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Banning html from text-only newsgroups is a _great_ idea however.
>>>>
>>>> It already is banned.  The better newsreaders can be told not to
>>>> display it.
>>>
>>> Sadly, you can't "ban" html because it's text. That's all it is.
>>
>> However, you can tell it from most pure text.  Similarly you can
>> tell text from arbitrary binary, most of the time.  These things
>> revolve around the definition of a 'bit', from which we can derive
>> definitions for 'byte', 'line', 'record', etc.
>>
>> You are probably not aware that the better news-servers (generally
>> European) will simply discard html messages.  It is quite
>> effective.
> 
> Which brings us to the concept that all compliance here for any form
> of posting is voluntary or based on the whim of the person posting.
> No amount of posturing or pointing to a Request For Comments (RFC)
> is going to make a bit of difference. Top, middle or bottom. HTML or
> plain text. Binary or not, the choice is clearly up to the voluntary
> compliance of everyone here, each to his or her own.

True also.  However, assuming fairly reasonable users, pointing out
of the standard conventions, together with reasons for them,
generally has favorable results and makes Usenet more livable for
all.  In my experience.

Notice how this has evolved from a potential flame war to a
reasonable presentation of facts.  I think the key ingredient is
that neither of us made ridiculous exagerated conclusions about the
others meaning or motives.

-- 
 Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
   Try the download section.



-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Ray Haddad wrote:

> Which brings us to the concept that all compliance here for any form
> of posting is voluntary or based on the whim of the person posting.
> No amount of posturing or pointing to a Request For Comments (RFC)
> is going to make a bit of difference. Top, middle or bottom. HTML or
> plain text. Binary or not, the choice is clearly up to the voluntary
> compliance of everyone here, each to his or her own.

Ultimately, it is the poster that writes the posts, and technical 
measures only work to some extent (though they manage to block all 
binaries, almost all html, and most of the spam from newsgroups such as 
this one).  But educating posters as to how best to join this community 
*does* make a difference.

There are a few posters who feel that they have a right to post exactly 
what they want, in the way that they want, with a total disregard for 
the newsgroup community - they apparently forget that behind each poster 
and each reader is a real, living, thinking person, who is taking time 
to help others, or to ask for help, or to simply take part in 
conversations with others around the globe.  Fortunately, such posters 
are few.

Most posters who invoke the wrath of the net nannies are relative 
newcomers, and they either leave (since they are unlikely to get helpful 
answers), or they make the effort to fit in with the group.


Net nanny posts are annoying - but they are a necessary evil to keep 
this newsgroup the way we like it.

Ray Haddad wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 14:46:44 -0600, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
> and David Kelly <n4hhe@Yahoo.com> instead replied:
> 
>> Failure to reply in the proper format will cause many to ignore one's 
>> reply. If you want a reply then you will reply in the format expected by 
>> those who are capable of answering.
> 
> This is just plain silly. In the early days of USENET, before it was
> even called that, the norm was top posting to reply leaving the
> balance of the message for reference only. Period.
> 

The norm has *always* been to reply in-context, to bottom-post new text, 
and to snip unnecessary quotations.  The size of posts used to be far 
more relevant than today - no one let the posts get bigger than they had 
to be.

> Some folk in the business world still do that. Go to any help desk
> for any software issue and that's how they do it. The even ask you
> to reply on top leaving the balance of the message dialog as a
> record of the discussion thus far.
> 

Business email, support email, mailing lists and other such things are 
*not* Usenet groups.  They have their own rules and conventions 
appropriate for their users, as do different newsgroups.  If you want to 
join a community, learn and follow the rules and conventions of *that* 
community, rather than moaning about how other groups have different 
styles.  After all, you don't expect the same dress code to apply to a 
biker gang and a church meeting - why should the same posting style be 
used in such wildly different situations?

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:08:52 +0100, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
and David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> instead
replied:

>Ray Haddad wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 14:46:44 -0600, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>> and David Kelly <n4hhe@Yahoo.com> instead replied:
>> 
>>> Failure to reply in the proper format will cause many to ignore one's 
>>> reply. If you want a reply then you will reply in the format expected by 
>>> those who are capable of answering.
>> 
>> This is just plain silly. In the early days of USENET, before it was
>> even called that, the norm was top posting to reply leaving the
>> balance of the message for reference only. Period.
>
>The norm has *always* been to reply in-context, to bottom-post new text, 
>and to snip unnecessary quotations.  The size of posts used to be far 
>more relevant than today - no one let the posts get bigger than they had 
>to be.

Not so. In the early days, it was the convention to top post. If you
wanted to read the rest, you could scroll down to read it. There was
no sense in re-reading all the words over and over as an exchange
took place.

>> Some folk in the business world still do that. Go to any help desk
>> for any software issue and that's how they do it. The even ask you
>> to reply on top leaving the balance of the message dialog as a
>> record of the discussion thus far.
>
>Business email, support email, mailing lists and other such things are 
>*not* Usenet groups.  They have their own rules and conventions 
>appropriate for their users, as do different newsgroups.  If you want to 
>join a community, learn and follow the rules and conventions of *that* 
>community, rather than moaning about how other groups have different 
>styles.  After all, you don't expect the same dress code to apply to a 
>biker gang and a church meeting - why should the same posting style be 
>used in such wildly different situations?

USENET is a form of e-mail and always has been.

Who decided the conventions for this newsgroup? If anyone ever did,
they're long gone now and new conventions are being established by
those who state to post as you wish. That's the new convention.
--
Ray

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:00:54 +0100, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
and David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> instead
replied:

>Ray Haddad wrote:
>
>> Which brings us to the concept that all compliance here for any form
>> of posting is voluntary or based on the whim of the person posting.
>> No amount of posturing or pointing to a Request For Comments (RFC)
>> is going to make a bit of difference. Top, middle or bottom. HTML or
>> plain text. Binary or not, the choice is clearly up to the voluntary
>> compliance of everyone here, each to his or her own.
>
>Ultimately, it is the poster that writes the posts, and technical 
>measures only work to some extent (though they manage to block all 
>binaries, almost all html, and most of the spam from newsgroups such as 
>this one).  But educating posters as to how best to join this community 
>*does* make a difference.

Compliance is voluntary. Not all NNTP servers filter.

>There are a few posters who feel that they have a right to post exactly 
>what they want, in the way that they want, with a total disregard for 
>the newsgroup community - they apparently forget that behind each poster 
>and each reader is a real, living, thinking person, who is taking time 
>to help others, or to ask for help, or to simply take part in 
>conversations with others around the globe.  Fortunately, such posters 
>are few.

Feel? The DO have a  right. Show me how you're going to "make"
anyone post the way you want them to post.

>Most posters who invoke the wrath of the net nannies are relative 
>newcomers, and they either leave (since they are unlikely to get helpful 
>answers), or they make the effort to fit in with the group.

Nonsense. People post as they want to post.

>Net nanny posts are annoying - but they are a necessary evil to keep 
>this newsgroup the way we like it.

Yet here you are making yet another attempt to nanny the rest.
--
Ray

The RFC states that bottom posting is the preference of the author
of the RFC itself but that it is not a rule.

"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:4782B211.A3B2231B@yahoo.com...
>
> .......  Read the rfcs. 

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 02:36:07 -0500, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
and CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> instead replied:

>Notice how this has evolved from a potential flame war to a
>reasonable presentation of facts.  I think the key ingredient is
>that neither of us made ridiculous exagerated conclusions about the
>others meaning or motives.

Absolutely. Have another adult beverage. My treat.
--
Ray

The liveability of Usenet is unaffected by top-posting.

"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:47847967.D69F728D@yahoo.com...
> True also.  However, assuming fairly reasonable users, pointing out
> of the standard conventions, together with reasons for them,
> generally has favorable results and makes Usenet more livable for
> all.  In my experience.

Ray Haddad wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:00:54 +0100, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
> and David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> instead
> replied:
> 
>> Ray Haddad wrote:
>>
>>> Which brings us to the concept that all compliance here for any form
>>> of posting is voluntary or based on the whim of the person posting.
>>> No amount of posturing or pointing to a Request For Comments (RFC)
>>> is going to make a bit of difference. Top, middle or bottom. HTML or
>>> plain text. Binary or not, the choice is clearly up to the voluntary
>>> compliance of everyone here, each to his or her own.
>> Ultimately, it is the poster that writes the posts, and technical 
>> measures only work to some extent (though they manage to block all 
>> binaries, almost all html, and most of the spam from newsgroups such as 
>> this one).  But educating posters as to how best to join this community 
>> *does* make a difference.
> 
> Compliance is voluntary. Not all NNTP servers filter.
> 

Decent ones do - that's why people pay for newsserver access if their 
ISP's don't provide a good service.

>> There are a few posters who feel that they have a right to post exactly 
>> what they want, in the way that they want, with a total disregard for 
>> the newsgroup community - they apparently forget that behind each poster 
>> and each reader is a real, living, thinking person, who is taking time 
>> to help others, or to ask for help, or to simply take part in 
>> conversations with others around the globe.  Fortunately, such posters 
>> are few.
> 
> Feel? The DO have a  right. Show me how you're going to "make"
> anyone post the way you want them to post.
> 

Perhaps "moral standards" or "social rules" are better terms than 
"rights" - I don't know what is more appropriate.  But just as you don't 
have the "right" to walk up to a group conversing in the street and 
start talking loudly about the weather, you don't have the "right" to 
join a public discussion forum and disrupt the discussions going on 
there.  In both cases, there are no laws involved, and no way to force 
the abuser to stop - but following unwritten group rules is fundamental 
to human society.

>> Most posters who invoke the wrath of the net nannies are relative 
>> newcomers, and they either leave (since they are unlikely to get helpful 
>> answers), or they make the effort to fit in with the group.
> 
> Nonsense. People post as they want to post.

Most people post because they want to take part in discussions.  They'll 
get more of that if they follow the style of the group.

> 
>> Net nanny posts are annoying - but they are a necessary evil to keep 
>> this newsgroup the way we like it.
> 
> Yet here you are making yet another attempt to nanny the rest.

As I say, it's a necessary evil.

I note that you are posting appropriately (no html, replying in-line and 
bottom posting, etc.), and it's perfectly clear from this thread that 
this style makes the conversation easy to read.  So why exactly are we 
arguing?  If it's about freedom, and people's right to say what they 
want and how they say it, then in general I'm all for it - but a certain 
level of convention and standardisation makes life much easier.