Just a note for future google groups searches...

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 06:01:34 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <315sl095v714noiot9pjmb0a8d1kegpbng@4ax.com>,
> Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@5xxxmail.com5xxx> wrote:
>
>> >Top posting makes it so much easier!
>> >
>>
>> Yes, and for some reason people complain about it.
>
>Not "for some reason". For valid reasons.

Yes, there are valid reasons. People seldom state them, but usually
some nonsense like "We do it that way".

Also, they almost always forget that BOTH (top posting and bottom
posting) have valid reasons (as well as disadvantages). Perfection
doesn't exist and can't.

--
84 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http/notstupid.laughingsquid.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 03:07:30 GMT, "BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com>
wrote:

>I think Netgear has always had it... at least the one I bought 2 years
>ago does. I have a d-link at the office and that has it too. After
>playing with a number of routers over the years, I've settled on Netgear
>for ease of use, reliability and web support.
>

I didn't quite finish that last post, but that;s what I started to
say. The fact that it's in the netgear manual (which I haven't read
fully yet, but it looks better than the D-Link manual) makes it look
like Netgear has had it (fixed IPs for DHCP) longer (and it could be
freer of bugs).

>From:Mark Lloyd
>mlloyd@5xxxmail.com5xxx
>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>
>>> FYI
>>>
>>> This feature is also avail in my NETGEAR WGR 614 v4. It is called
>>> "Address reservation"--here is the cut and paste from browser
>>> utility help. This is an old feature (was on old b routers from
>>> NETGEAR as well)
>>> Address Reservation
>>>
>>> When you specify a reserved IP address for a PC on the LAN, that PC
>>> will always receive the same IP address each time it accesses the
>>> DHCP server. Reserved IP addresses should be assigned to servers
>>> that require permanent IP settings.
>>>
>>> T Chapman
>>>
>>
>> I'm looking at the manual for that (as well as that D-Link one), and
>> they both have significanlty more features then the Linksys I'm using
>> now.
>>
>> The D-Link manual itself has no mention of reserved IP (it must have
>> been a later firmware addition). The netgear manual does.
>>
>>

--
84 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http/notstupid.laughingsquid.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

In article <eojtl0pvvuklp982sb7p9p8ap3h2j4k0a0@4ax.com>,
Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@5xxxmail.com5xxx> wrote:

> Also, they almost always forget that BOTH (top posting and bottom
> posting) have valid reasons (as well as disadvantages).

Nope. Top posting has no reason to exist other than laziness on the
part of the nut behind the wheel.

Trimming and posting so as to create a normal flow of conversation has
NO disadvantages whatsoever, and is simply courteous as well as common
sense.

 

[george]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 13:52:12 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <eojtl0pvvuklp982sb7p9p8ap3h2j4k0a0@4ax.com>,
> Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@5xxxmail.com5xxx> wrote:
>
>> Also, they almost always forget that BOTH (top posting and bottom
>> posting) have valid reasons (as well as disadvantages).
>
>Nope. Top posting has no reason to exist other than laziness on the
>part of the nut behind the wheel.
>

And, of course, that it makes it easy on the reader.

>Trimming and posting so as to create a normal flow of conversation has
>NO disadvantages whatsoever, and is simply courteous as well as common
>sense.

A usenet post ISN'T a conversation. A THREAD is.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

Bottom posters make me scroll through a weeks worth of already read
messages to see the reply - a real time waster!



From:George
George

> On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 13:52:12 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
> <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <eojtl0pvvuklp982sb7p9p8ap3h2j4k0a0@4ax.com>,
>> Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@5xxxmail.com5xxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Also, they almost always forget that BOTH (top posting and bottom
>>> posting) have valid reasons (as well as disadvantages).
>>
>> Nope. Top posting has no reason to exist other than laziness on the
>> part of the nut behind the wheel.
>>
>
> And, of course, that it makes it easy on the reader.
>
>> Trimming and posting so as to create a normal flow of conversation
>> has NO disadvantages whatsoever, and is simply courteous as well as
>> common sense.
>
> A usenet post ISN'T a conversation. A THREAD is.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

In article <qJD7d.1266$z04.35@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote:

> Bottom posters make me scroll through a weeks worth of already read
> messages to see the reply - a real time waster!

No, bottom posters who are arrogant and lazy and as a result don't trim
their posts are responsible for that.

Bottom posters who trim their posts (like I did this one) to make a
normal flow of ideas are fine--in fact, they're to be encouraged.

Top posters who don't trim anything but who simply post their stuff at
the top--like you, Bruce--are as bad as anything the top posters
themselves complain about. You say what you want to say, then you force
others to scroll down through the quoted material to find the little
snippet of material you're talking about.

You're just lazy and arrogant. You saw something YOU know you're
referencing, so you just hit the reply button and type away while it's
fresh in your mind. Two days later, someone else sees what you write at
the top of an article--and you might as well be writing in a vacuum for
all that guy knows. He has no idea what you're writing about, and he's
not likely to scroll down through the UNTRIMMED quoted material to try
to correlate what you wrote at the top with what's quoted way down below.

Face it: top posting is bad. It makes you read things backwards.
Untrimmed quoting is bad. Put them together--like what you did,
Bruce--and you have a discourteous, arrogant individual who assumes the
world revolves around him and his laziness.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

In article <qJD7d.1266$z04.35@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote:

> From:George
> George
>
> > On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 13:52:12 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
> > <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <eojtl0pvvuklp982sb7p9p8ap3h2j4k0a0@4ax.com>,
> >> Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@5xxxmail.com5xxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Also, they almost always forget that BOTH (top posting and bottom
> >>> posting) have valid reasons (as well as disadvantages).
> >>
> >> Nope. Top posting has no reason to exist other than laziness on the
> >> part of the nut behind the wheel.
> >>
> >
> > And, of course, that it makes it easy on the reader.
> >
> >> Trimming and posting so as to create a normal flow of conversation
> >> has NO disadvantages whatsoever, and is simply courteous as well as
> >> common sense.
> >
> > A usenet post ISN'T a conversation. A THREAD is.
>
>
> Bottom posters make me scroll through a weeks worth of already read
> messages to see the reply - a real time waster!
>
>
>


only when you don't trim the unnecessary stuff, like what I did here.

 

[Sam]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 17:53:43 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <qJD7d.1266$z04.35@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote:
>
>> Bottom posters make me scroll through a weeks worth of already read
>> messages to see the reply - a real time waster!
>
>No, bottom posters who are arrogant and lazy and as a result don't trim
>their posts are responsible for that.
>

Somewhat more so than top posters who are arrogant and lazy and as a
result don't trim their posts.

>Bottom posters who trim their posts (like I did this one) to make a
>normal flow of ideas are fine--in fact, they're to be encouraged.
>

OK, botton-posting is fine when you quote a few lines (but DO quote
SOME).

>Top posters who don't trim anything but who simply post their stuff at
>the top--like you, Bruce--are as bad as anything the top posters
>themselves complain about. You say what you want to say, then you force
>others to scroll down through the quoted material to find the little
>snippet of material you're talking about.
>

Both top-posting and bottom-posting are all right. In any case, quote
a few lines but not more than a screenful.

>You're just lazy and arrogant. You saw something YOU know you're
>referencing, so you just hit the reply button and type away while it's
>fresh in your mind. Two days later, someone else sees what you write at
>the top of an article--and you might as well be writing in a vacuum for
>all that guy knows. He has no idea what you're writing about, and he's
>not likely to scroll down through the UNTRIMMED quoted material to try
>to correlate what you wrote at the top with what's quoted way down below.
>

Did you consider that maybe he's READ the previous posts in the
thread, and just needs the new material?

>Face it: top posting is bad. It makes you read things backwards.

Like some people have said before, it's the THREAD that's like a
conversation, not THAT POST BY ITSELF.

>Untrimmed quoting is bad. Put them together--like what you did,
>Bruce--and you have a discourteous, arrogant individual

Untrimmed quoting (quoting more than a screenful) in bad.
Bottom-posting makes it worse.

> who assumes the
>world revolves around him and his laziness.

Would you still prefer bottom-posting after reading SEVERAL HUNDRED
posts with replies below excessive quotation?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

> Face it: top posting is bad. It makes you read things backwards.
> Untrimmed quoting is bad. Put them together--like what you did,
> Bruce--and you have a discourteous, arrogant individual who assumes
> the world revolves around him and his laziness.

You mean it doesn't? Sheesh, what a disappointment!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

So, since both top AND bottom posters are generally lazy and
discourteous, it comes down to the lesser of two evils - just like a
typical election. Given that both are less than perfect I'll side with
the top posters of which I am one. The chance of having most people
trim and post the "correct" way is somewhere between slim and none.

From:Elmo P. Shagnasty
elmop@nastydesigns.com

> In article <qJD7d.1266$z04.35@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote:
>
>> From:George
>> George
>>
>>> On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 13:52:12 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
>>> <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <eojtl0pvvuklp982sb7p9p8ap3h2j4k0a0@4ax.com>,
>>>> Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@5xxxmail.com5xxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Also, they almost always forget that BOTH (top posting and bottom
>>>>> posting) have valid reasons (as well as disadvantages).
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Top posting has no reason to exist other than laziness on
>>>> the part of the nut behind the wheel.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And, of course, that it makes it easy on the reader.
>>>
>>>> Trimming and posting so as to create a normal flow of conversation
>>>> has NO disadvantages whatsoever, and is simply courteous as well as
>>>> common sense.
>>>
>>> A usenet post ISN'T a conversation. A THREAD is.
>>
>>
>> Bottom posters make me scroll through a weeks worth of already read
>> messages to see the reply - a real time waster!
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> only when you don't trim the unnecessary stuff, like what I did here.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

In article <S9G7d.1444$z04.1434@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote:

> So, since both top AND bottom posters are generally lazy and
> discourteous, it comes down to the lesser of two evils

no, it doesn't. Rude and discourteous is rude and discourteous, period.

 

[Tony]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 18:57:25 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <S9G7d.1444$z04.1434@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote:
>
>> So, since both top AND bottom posters are generally lazy and
>> discourteous, it comes down to the lesser of two evils
>
>no, it doesn't. Rude and discourteous is rude and discourteous, period.

Then what would you suggest. Post everying in alt.bullshit regardless
of topic?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

Mark Lloyd wrote:

> I didn't quite finish that last post, but that;s what I started to
> say. The fact that it's in the netgear manual (which I haven't read
> fully yet, but it looks better than the D-Link manual) makes it look
> like Netgear has had it (fixed IPs for DHCP) longer (and it could be
> freer of bugs).

Near as I can say there are no bugs. It simply works. (I use a D-Link)

The only major difference I've seen was in the FILTERS area.

As noted, I use a D-link low end.. MAC-Address filtering applies to both
LAN and Wireless-LAN So when I plugged in my Replay... It did not work

Once I added it's MAC to the filters... It worked great

My Daughter's Linksys.... Filters apply ONLY to the wireless side of things.

Some labels are different between the two as well.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 23:47:54 GMT, John in Detroit
<Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Mark Lloyd wrote:
>
>> I didn't quite finish that last post, but that;s what I started to
>> say. The fact that it's in the netgear manual (which I haven't read
>> fully yet, but it looks better than the D-Link manual) makes it look
>> like Netgear has had it (fixed IPs for DHCP) longer (and it could be
>> freer of bugs).
>
>Near as I can say there are no bugs. It simply works. (I use a D-Link)
>
>The only major difference I've seen was in the FILTERS area.
>
>As noted, I use a D-link low end.. MAC-Address filtering applies to both
>LAN and Wireless-LAN So when I plugged in my Replay... It did not work
>
>Once I added it's MAC to the filters... It worked great
>
>My Daughter's Linksys.... Filters apply ONLY to the wireless side of things.
>

My Linksys has both types of filters.

>Some labels are different between the two as well.

--
84 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http/notstupid.laughingsquid.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

....and such is the way of life...

From:Elmo P. Shagnasty
elmop@nastydesigns.com

> In article <S9G7d.1444$z04.1434@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote:
>
>> So, since both top AND bottom posters are generally lazy and
>> discourteous, it comes down to the lesser of two evils
>
> no, it doesn't. Rude and discourteous is rude and discourteous,
> period.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

In article <u1H7d.3252$5b1.2799@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
John in Detroit <Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Now... For my complaint.... OVER QUOTING

Absolutely. Trim your posts, quote only what you're replying to, and
put it all in order.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

In article <7eeul0t9pk7f167d6p56re8lo2fhar4fn7@4ax.com>, Sam <notmail>
wrote:

> Both top-posting and bottom-posting are all right.

Top posting is never right.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

In article <7eeul0t9pk7f167d6p56re8lo2fhar4fn7@4ax.com>, Sam <notmail>
wrote:

> >You're just lazy and arrogant. You saw something YOU know you're
> >referencing, so you just hit the reply button and type away while it's
> >fresh in your mind. Two days later, someone else sees what you write at
> >the top of an article--and you might as well be writing in a vacuum for
> >all that guy knows. He has no idea what you're writing about, and he's
> >not likely to scroll down through the UNTRIMMED quoted material to try
> >to correlate what you wrote at the top with what's quoted way down below.
> >
>
> Did you consider that maybe he's READ the previous posts in the
> thread, and just needs the new material?

You're assuming a vacuum. News posting and propagation isn't an exact
science. Sometimes articles don't come through; you have to assume that
the reader didn't read the article in question. Also, it's not just a
conversation between two people; this isn't a circuit-switched
telephone. Other people are reading, and even if you got the previous
article, others may not have. Also, others may have jumped into the
middle.

And then there's archiving. Google's groups are sometimes an important
way to resolve problems and do research; people doing that definitely
haven't been involved in the conversation, and not to quote
appropriately definitely does them a disservice.

In other words, you're not thinking about anyone but yourself if you
assume a perfect world and assume that everyone who is reading what you
wrote has also read AND REMEMBERED PERFECTLY everything that came before
it.

Not to quote appropriately and post replies in order is rude and
arrogant.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

In article <7eeul0t9pk7f167d6p56re8lo2fhar4fn7@4ax.com>, Sam <notmail>
wrote:

> >Untrimmed quoting is bad. Put them together--like what you did,
> >Bruce--and you have a discourteous, arrogant individual
>
> Untrimmed quoting (quoting more than a screenful) in bad.

"More than a screenful"?? What is a screenful? I'm reading this on a
22" monitor running at a decently high resolution. I have more screen
real estate than you do. By your definition, I can quote up to a
screenful for me--but for you, it would require scrolling.

You don't have a clue about the outside world and how to accommodate it.
Everybody's screen is different, so the "screenful" thing is
meaningless. Not everybody has read every post that came before, so
your idea of "just post what you want, everybody will know because he's
read the previous pieces of the thread" is meaningless.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

In article <7eeul0t9pk7f167d6p56re8lo2fhar4fn7@4ax.com>, Sam <notmail>
wrote:

> Would you still prefer bottom-posting after reading SEVERAL HUNDRED
> posts with replies below excessive quotation?

No. And that's why I said to trim the posts you're quoting, AND put
your replies in under the relevant quotes so that people who read it can
have some clue what everyone's talking about.