EmbeddedRelated.com
Forums
Memfault State of IoT Report

looking for hardware source

Started by Unknown January 4, 2008
The position on the page of a reply does not disrupt the
discussion, just as this top-posted reply does not disrupt
the discussion as to  why bottom-posting is so bad.

"David Brown" <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote in message 
news:47849552$0$14992$8404b019@news.wineasy.se...
> >..... you don't have the "right" to join a public discussion forum and >disrupt the discussions going on there.
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 11:10:33 +0100, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
and David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> instead
replied:

>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.
I'd suggest that anything other than full access is a type of censorship. Your mileage may vary.
>>> 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? They 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.
This is hardly a discussion on a street corner. Your analogy is fouled by the fact that people pay for access to these newsgroups and should post as they wish without rebuke.
>>> 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.
I wonder. Sometimes, but only rarely, I top post. It's not because I'm conforming to any rule set but because that's sometimes the appropriate place to post. Do you remember Zen and the Art of Usenet? In that venerable old document, the preferred method for posting was described as what we would today call top posting. Here, 20 years on, it's still not decided.
>>> 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.
Necessary to you, perhaps. Your goal is to win and force everyone to post at the bottom of a post. You might believe that's noble but it's really quite despicable. What if someone were to come along and force you to top post or suggest strongly that unless you did you'd be considered an outcast?
>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.
In spite of that, the issue of whether or not this is a voluntary compliance is still the subject under discussion. You seem to insist that it's the law. I insist that it's voluntary. We both know the truth. If I wanted to, I could top post, attach a binary file and use HTML to embed a link. The fact is that all binaries are converted to text in the process of posting and your server can't even tell the difference. The lack of binaries on this newsgroup is simply luck in that the idiots who try to deny NNTP service by flooding with binaries have not found this group to be worthy of their interest. Knock on wood. -- Ray
Ray Haddad wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 11:10:33 +0100, I said, "Pick a card, any card" > and David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> instead > replied: >
<snip>
> > Necessary to you, perhaps. Your goal is to win and force everyone to > post at the bottom of a post. You might believe that's noble but > it's really quite despicable. What if someone were to come along and > force you to top post or suggest strongly that unless you did you'd > be considered an outcast? >
My goal is not nearly as forceful as that. I simply believe that a discussion forum of any kind is better for its users if they follow a similar communication style. The standard style for this newsgroup is text-only, with replies inline and/or bottom posted. Like most (I know that's subjective, but it's based on reading this group for many years) here who bother to express an opinion, I think that style is best for this group - for a variety of good reasons. I am not trying to "win" anything, nor to force anyone. I believe that when a person joins any established group of people, they should adapt to the customs and conventions of that group. That's just common courtesy and respect. It is particularly irritating when people (not you, but another poster in this thread) join the group and not only ignore the established conventions, but claim loudly that their way of doing it is better, and we should all change.
>> 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. > > In spite of that, the issue of whether or not this is a voluntary > compliance is still the subject under discussion. You seem to insist > that it's the law. I insist that it's voluntary. We both know the > truth. If I wanted to, I could top post, attach a binary file and > use HTML to embed a link. The fact is that all binaries are > converted to text in the process of posting and your server can't > even tell the difference. The lack of binaries on this newsgroup is > simply luck in that the idiots who try to deny NNTP service by > flooding with binaries have not found this group to be worthy of > their interest. Knock on wood.
Yes, we both know that posting style is voluntary, and not law - and we agree that this is the way it should be. I simply believe that people should voluntarily follow the conventions of the group - it's best for us in the group from before, it is best for the new people joining the group, and it is best for future readers of the archives. The lack of binaries on this group is due to filtering on servers to block binaries. This is done on most text-only newsgroups, and is important to the working of newsservers and news archivers, many of which only carry text-only newsgroups. Similarly, most newsservers will provide a certain amount of spam filtering of posts (at least for the most obvious spams) - this greatly improves their usability. You can certainly argue this amounts to censorship, but it is a very long way from any sort of freedom-curtailing censorship. In fact, the filters on most newsservers (including the one I use) are not strong enough to block the flooding with text junk that has hit this group several times in the last couple of months.
"Anonymous." wrote:
> > The liveability of Usenet is unaffected by top-posting. > > "CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >> 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.
PLONK -- 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 <rhaddad@iexpress.net.au> writes:
> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> instead replied: > >Ray Haddad wrote: > >> David Kelly <n4hhe@Yahoo.com> 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. > > > >Ridiculous misinformation. Read the rfcs. Read the following: > > An RFC is not a rule. Good grief. Is that all you've got?
Do you know how many RFCs must be obeyed for you to have Internet service (including this net news you are using)?
Ray Haddad wrote:
> 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.
I'd like to see a source to support that statement.
> 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.
I've never encountered any organization requiring top-posting. What I usually see are clueless repliers who are using some M$ product to which Bill Gates applies his own rules such as top-posting replies and including an HTML version of the same text. One person and I bid bridge hands via email. I can just see the effect of top-posting the replies: 1H 2S 3N 4C ...
> P > 1N > 3H > 1D > ...
Another person and I hold business "conversations" via email and some of the threads get complex and sometimes have more than one topic. Interleaved replies are the only thing that make sense in these cases. Requiring top-posting would be ridiculous.
> Another person and I hold business "conversations" via email > and some of the threads get complex and sometimes have more > than one topic. Interleaved replies are the only thing that > make sense in these cases. Requiring top-posting would be > ridiculous.
I've had such badly top-posted emails that I've had to copy it into a text editor then cut and paste everything into the right order. Very boring and time consuming. Andrew
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 09:34:01 PST, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and
mojaveg@mojaveg.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com (Everett M. Greene) instead
replied:

>Ray Haddad <rhaddad@iexpress.net.au> writes: >> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> instead replied: >> >Ray Haddad wrote: >> >> David Kelly <n4hhe@Yahoo.com> 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. >> > >> >Ridiculous misinformation. Read the rfcs. Read the following: >> >> An RFC is not a rule. Good grief. Is that all you've got? > >Do you know how many RFCs must be obeyed for you to have >Internet service (including this net news you are using)?
Must be obeyed? Look, my friend. Compliance is voluntary. There is no "must be obeyed" about it. An RFC is a Request For Comments and nothing more. -- Ray
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:33:07 +0100, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
and David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> instead
replied:

>My goal is not nearly as forceful as that. I simply believe that a >discussion forum of any kind is better for its users if they follow a >similar communication style.
Your belief is noted. Mine belief is that people should post as they wish; top, middle or bottom. What if you were suddenly invaded by a group of programmers who all liked to top post? Would you then change and encourage others to top post? -- Ray
"Everett M. Greene" <mojaveg@mojaveg.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com> wrote in message 
news:20080109.793A5C0.878B@mojaveg.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...
> One person and I bid bridge hands via email. I can just > see the effect of top-posting the replies:
Irrelevant. it is the chronological order of bidding that is important and not the way it is laid out in a log.
> Another person and I hold business "conversations" via email > and some of the threads get complex and sometimes have more > than one topic. Interleaved replies are the only thing that > make sense in these cases. Requiring top-posting would be > ridiculous.
It is the "requiring" that is ridiculous. It is only the bottom poster who "requires". The top poster deals with posts of any mix.

Memfault State of IoT Report