Your response to someone who disagrees with you and has done so in an adult mature manner says more than you intended, both about you and about the specious campaign for bottom posting. "CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4784F319.AB97E6B2@yahoo.com...> "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
looking for hardware source
Started by ●January 4, 2008
Reply by ●January 10, 20082008-01-10
Reply by ●January 10, 20082008-01-10
Top-posting is not a matter of etiquette, it is a matter of personal style. Making immature remarks about others' style is, however a matter of the _lack_ of etiquette. "anon-i-mouse" <anon-i-moose@att.uucp> wrote in message news:slrnfob88u.9hg.njc@cookie.uucp...> No it's actually an easy way of ignoring stupidity. It's not > censorship to not listen to the rambling of the self important. If you > can't follow establshed etiquette then we don't have to pay attention > to you. > Oh yeah, *PLONK*
Reply by ●January 10, 20082008-01-10
It is the bottom posters who repeatedly raise this topic. Address your remarks to them. "Pertti Kellom�ki" <pertti.kellomaki@tut.fi> wrote in message news:fm4r2n$i87$1@news.cc.tut.fi...> Anonymous. wrote: >> Making immature remarks about others' style is, however >> a matter of the _lack_ of etiquette. > > So is continuing off topic discussion under a subject that > has long since ceased to be relevant. Good bye and have a > nice day. > -- > Pertti
Reply by ●January 10, 20082008-01-10
Anonymous. wrote:> Making immature remarks about others' style is, however > a matter of the _lack_ of etiquette.So is continuing off topic discussion under a subject that has long since ceased to be relevant. Good bye and have a nice day. -- Pertti
Reply by ●January 10, 20082008-01-10
Ray Haddad <rhaddad@iexpress.net.au> writes:> Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> replied: > > >Take a look at some of the important RFCs and how detailed they > >are, and how important that technical detail is, and you will > >understand that the literal meaning of the traditional label > >"Request For Comment" no longer applies to them, after they have > >become adopted. David is right as regards the RFC's for IP etc. > > The remain REQUEST FOR COMMENT documents, not rules.Did you read the postings to this newsgroup and post followups to it without complying with RFC977? I've never liked the RFC nomenclature for approved items. It would seem that a different nomenclature should be used for those RFCs that have been approved for use versus those that have been run up the flagpole to see who salutes. Part of the problem with "standards" for the Internet is that there is no "owner" to set the rules. Everyone who connects to and uses the Internet is an "owner" and can set his own rules. However, setting one's own rules that are different from everyone else's is chaos. As for standards of any sort, all are volunary unless specified by law or contract.
Reply by ●January 12, 20082008-01-12
In article <6akao3pp369b0633k844ghq9ckogd1nh7l@4ax.com>, Ray Haddad <rhaddad@iexpress.net.au> wrote:>On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:22:10 +0200, I said, "Pick a card, any card" >and Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> instead replied: > >>Take a look at some of the important RFCs and how detailed they >>are, and how important that technical detail is, and you will >>understand that the literal meaning of the traditional label >>"Request For Comment" no longer applies to them, after they have >>become adopted. David is right as regards the RFC's for IP etc. > >The remain REQUEST FOR COMMENT documents, not rules.This reflects that usenet is an open community, not a police state. The punishment for not obeying the rules is that you don't belong to the community. If your ISP would ignore the rules, you couldn't communicate with us. Your punishment for not obeying the rules, has already been applied, unbeknownst to you. The most valuable answers you could got for your questions are not available, because the most knowledgeable persons of this group have killfiled you.>-- >RayGroetjes Albert -- -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- like all pyramid schemes -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
Reply by ●January 12, 20082008-01-12
> ... The most valuable answers > you could got for your questions are not available, because > the most knowledgeable persons of this group have killfiled > you.While this may be true under circumstances, it does not even begin to tell the whole story. If anyone feels he should killfile me because of the format of my posts, I would only encourage him to do that. No chance such a person would have any useful replies for me anyway. People who do have useful replies would be way too busy to initiate top/bottom post arguments. BTW, the same top/bottom post thread initiators gladly tolerate broken English - if properly bottom posted, that is. My suggestion to all of the bttom vs. top post religion preachers is to get a real job which keeps them busy doing something useful. Dimiter ------------------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments http://www.tgi-sci.com ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/sets/72157600228621276/ On Jan 12, 7:59=A0pm, Albert van der Horst <alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote:> In article <6akao3pp369b0633k844ghq9ckogd1n...@4ax.com>, > Ray Haddad =A0<rhad...@iexpress.net.au> wrote: > > >On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:22:10 +0200, I said, "Pick a card, any card" > >and Niklas Holsti <niklas.hol...@tidorum.invalid> instead replied: > > >>Take a look at some of the important RFCs and how detailed they > >>are, and how important that technical detail is, and you will > >>understand that the literal meaning of the traditional label > >>"Request For Comment" no longer applies to them, after they have > >>become adopted. David is right as regards the RFC's for IP etc. > > >The remain REQUEST FOR COMMENT documents, not rules. > > This reflects that usenet is an open community, not a police > state. The punishment for not obeying the rules is that you > don't belong to the community. If your ISP would ignore the > rules, you couldn't communicate with us. > > Your punishment for not obeying the rules, has already been > applied, unbeknownst to you. The most valuable answers > you could got for your questions are not available, because > the most knowledgeable persons of this group have killfiled > you. > > >-- > >Ray > > Groetjes Albert > > -- > -- > Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS > Economic growth -- like all pyramid schemes -- ultimately falters. > albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=3Dnhttp://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
Reply by ●January 12, 20082008-01-12
On 12 Jan 2008 17:59:53 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> instead replied:>Your punishment for not obeying the rules, has already been >applied, unbeknownst to you. The most valuable answers >you could got for your questions are not available, because >the most knowledgeable persons of this group have killfiled >you.Actually, I've never been here for answers. I don't need them. I'm here to give them when needed. -- Ray
Reply by ●January 12, 20082008-01-12
Didi wrote:>> ... The most valuable answers >> you could got for your questions are not available, because >> the most knowledgeable persons of this group have killfiled >> you. > > While this may be true under circumstances, it does not even > begin to tell the whole story. > If anyone feels he should killfile me because of the > format of my posts, I would only encourage him to do that. > No chance such a person would have any useful replies for me > anyway.That's not actually true - there are people around who can be very smart, very helpful, and very petty (though not so much in this group). And while few would killfile someone for the occasional top-post, some might do so for actively advocating top-posting. Of course, there are some who might killfile me for simply adding to this off-topic thread...> People who do have useful replies would be way too busy to > initiate top/bottom post arguments. > BTW, the same top/bottom post thread initiators gladly > tolerate broken English - if properly bottom posted, that is. >Most of us here are very tolerant of broken English - if it is a matter of a non-native English speaker doing his/her best. Few are tolerant of deliberate SMS-speak or other such childish nonsense, but I have seen very few spelling flames in this group. We even tolerate American spelling!> My suggestion to all of the bttom vs. top post religion > preachers is to get a real job which keeps them busy > doing something useful. >Are we not allowed to relax a little with non-essential banter? Anyway, while people may ask questions here as part of their real job, not many could justify answering questions as proper work - we do it for enjoyment, to help people, to contribute to the quality of embedded development, and to learn from discussions.> Dimiter > >> Groetjes Albert >>
Reply by ●January 12, 20082008-01-12
> > No chance such a person would have any useful replies for me > > anyway. > > That's not actually true - there are people around who can be very > smart, very helpful, and very petty (though not so much in this group).Well may be they do exist but I have yet to get to know one of them :-).> Are we not allowed to relax a little with non-essential banter?Of course we are (do I feel silly for being so serious on that...). Frankly, really interesting technical topics come up once every few months, the rest of the time we do pub-like talk anyway. Nothing wrong with that with me - nor with top/bottom posting flames, although I believe some people do put more in them than they should. But it is freezing outside - has been for months now - and I definitely prefer sitting here than going out for a walk or wherever during my idle moments... Well, apart from wanting to kill some of the global warming lie proponents. OK, may be not kill, I'll settle for tying them in the cold outside for a while... :-). Or I'd give them to those Scottish football fans who had their matches postponed today because of the frozen pitches (I really wonder how frequent can that be). The English were luckier, not that the games I had on telly here today were any good (particularly the late one, me being a Newcastle supporter since the early Shearer times... :-). Dimiter ------------------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments http://www.tgi-sci.com ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/sets/72157600228621276/ On Jan 13, 1:16=A0am, David Brown <david.br...@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> wrote:> Didi wrote: > >> ... The most valuable answers > >> you could got for your questions are not available, because > >> the most knowledgeable persons of this group have killfiled > >> you. > > > While this may be true under circumstances, it does not even > > begin to tell the whole story. > > =A0If anyone feels he should killfile me because of the > > format of my posts, I would only encourage him to do that. > > No chance such a person would have any useful replies for me > > anyway. > > That's not actually true - there are people around who can be very > smart, very helpful, and very petty (though not so much in this group). > =A0 And while few would killfile someone for the occasional top-post, some=> might do so for actively advocating top-posting. =A0Of course, there are > some who might killfile me for simply adding to this off-topic thread... > > > =A0People who do have useful replies would be way too busy to > > initiate top/bottom post arguments. > > =A0BTW, the same top/bottom post thread initiators gladly > > tolerate broken English - if properly bottom posted, that is. > > Most of us here are very tolerant of broken English - if it is a matter > of a non-native English speaker doing his/her best. =A0Few are tolerant of=> deliberate SMS-speak or other such childish nonsense, but I have seen > very few spelling flames in this group. =A0We even tolerate American spell=ing!> > > My suggestion to all of the bttom vs. top post religion > > preachers is to get a real job which keeps them busy > > doing something useful. > > Are we not allowed to relax a little with non-essential banter? =A0Anyway,=> while people may ask questions here as part of their real job, not many > could justify answering questions as proper work - we do it for > enjoyment, to help people, to contribute to the quality of embedded > development, and to learn from discussions. > > > Dimiter > > >> Groetjes Albert
