Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 07:53:53 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>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.
I agree, Elmo, and these are some of my biggest pet peeves about new
users to Usenet and some oldtimers who seemingly think that their
behavior should be accepted regardless of how rude or arrogant it may
seem to everyone else. Sometimes I long for the old days when people
were more considerate, but the proliferation of pc's and easy access
has made Usenet a less fulfilling experience to some degree.
--
Any information contained in this post is merely a
restatement of information found in the news archives
of the newsgroups alt.dss.hack, alt.binaries.satellite-tv,
and alt.dbs.echostar.hack found on Google Groups. The person
making this post has no firsthand knowledge of bypassing
satellite security measures.
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 07:53:53 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>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.
I agree, Elmo, and these are some of my biggest pet peeves about new
users to Usenet and some oldtimers who seemingly think that their
behavior should be accepted regardless of how rude or arrogant it may
seem to everyone else. Sometimes I long for the old days when people
were more considerate, but the proliferation of pc's and easy access
has made Usenet a less fulfilling experience to some degree.
--
Any information contained in this post is merely a
restatement of information found in the news archives
of the newsgroups alt.dss.hack, alt.binaries.satellite-tv,
and alt.dbs.echostar.hack found on Google Groups. The person
making this post has no firsthand knowledge of bypassing
satellite security measures.
Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 07:48:11 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>In article <7eeul0t9pk7f167d6p56re8lo2fhar4fn7@4ax.com>, Sam <notmail>
>wrote:
>
>> Both top-posting and bottom-posting are all right.
>
>Top posting is never right.
Unless you care about your readers. Maybe you don't.
Complaining about top-posting is best done with brain engaged. Do you
have any actual reasons?
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 07:48:11 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>In article <7eeul0t9pk7f167d6p56re8lo2fhar4fn7@4ax.com>, Sam <notmail>
>wrote:
>
>> Both top-posting and bottom-posting are all right.
>
>Top posting is never right.
Unless you care about your readers. Maybe you don't.
Complaining about top-posting is best done with brain engaged. Do you
have any actual reasons?
Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 07:53:53 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>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,
News servers usually retain messages much longer than that.
>> > 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.
Maybe so. I'm assuming that people are willing to read. I don't
support aliteracy (the unwillingness to read, despite being able to).
> News posting and propagation isn't an exact
>science.
Of course not. Perfection does not exist in this reality. However,
messages are more often there than not.
> Sometimes articles don't come through; you have to assume that
>the reader didn't read the article in question.
That's somewhat like assuming the lack of a brain. Annoying to those
who have.
> Also, it's not just a
>conversation between two people; this isn't a circuit-switched
>telephone. Other people are reading,
And of course have access to the entire thread (unless maybe you're
replying to something posted months ago).
> and even if you got the previous
>article, others may not have. Also, others may have jumped into the
>middle.
>
And, for some strange reason, can't actually read the previous posts.
Are you saying YOU can't?
>And then there's archiving. Google's groups are sometimes an important
>way to resolve problems and do research;
Yes they are. Why do keep assuming that they (as well as all readers)
are incompetant?
> people doing that definitely
>haven't been involved in the conversation,
And have the conversation available, without redundant copies in EVERY
message of that thread.
>and not to quote
>appropriately definitely does them a disservice.
>
Sounds like you're recommending quoting EVERYTHING and snipping
NOTHING.
>In other words, you're not thinking about anyone but yourself if you
>assume a perfect world
As I said above, perfection is something that does not (and can not)
exist. Please stop saying that. I'm assuming a real world, where
people can and do learn things (like how to use a newsreader).
>and assume that everyone who is reading what you
>wrote has also read AND REMEMBERED PERFECTLY everything that came before
>it.
>
So apparently, you assume the lack of access to a decent newsreader
and news server.
>Not to quote appropriately and post replies in order is rude and
>arrogant.
And so is making it difficult for the reader by posting at the bottom
of a long message. Also, messing up the attribution of quotes, as you
did.
Note that you didn't quote appropriately (notice the first attribution
line. It doesn't belong with the following text).
So, bottom-posting (and that complete, ordered quoting) is a way to
provide support for the brainless and anti-intellectual, while making
life even more difficult for those without such limitations. It
"helps" newbies while restricting thier abiliy to improve, as well as
interfering with the activities of former newbies.
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 07:53:53 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>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,
News servers usually retain messages much longer than that.
>> > 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.
Maybe so. I'm assuming that people are willing to read. I don't
support aliteracy (the unwillingness to read, despite being able to).
> News posting and propagation isn't an exact
>science.
Of course not. Perfection does not exist in this reality. However,
messages are more often there than not.
> Sometimes articles don't come through; you have to assume that
>the reader didn't read the article in question.
That's somewhat like assuming the lack of a brain. Annoying to those
who have.
> Also, it's not just a
>conversation between two people; this isn't a circuit-switched
>telephone. Other people are reading,
And of course have access to the entire thread (unless maybe you're
replying to something posted months ago).
> and even if you got the previous
>article, others may not have. Also, others may have jumped into the
>middle.
>
And, for some strange reason, can't actually read the previous posts.
Are you saying YOU can't?
>And then there's archiving. Google's groups are sometimes an important
>way to resolve problems and do research;
Yes they are. Why do keep assuming that they (as well as all readers)
are incompetant?
> people doing that definitely
>haven't been involved in the conversation,
And have the conversation available, without redundant copies in EVERY
message of that thread.
>and not to quote
>appropriately definitely does them a disservice.
>
Sounds like you're recommending quoting EVERYTHING and snipping
NOTHING.
>In other words, you're not thinking about anyone but yourself if you
>assume a perfect world
As I said above, perfection is something that does not (and can not)
exist. Please stop saying that. I'm assuming a real world, where
people can and do learn things (like how to use a newsreader).
>and assume that everyone who is reading what you
>wrote has also read AND REMEMBERED PERFECTLY everything that came before
>it.
>
So apparently, you assume the lack of access to a decent newsreader
and news server.
>Not to quote appropriately and post replies in order is rude and
>arrogant.
And so is making it difficult for the reader by posting at the bottom
of a long message. Also, messing up the attribution of quotes, as you
did.
Note that you didn't quote appropriately (notice the first attribution
line. It doesn't belong with the following text).
So, bottom-posting (and that complete, ordered quoting) is a way to
provide support for the brainless and anti-intellectual, while making
life even more difficult for those without such limitations. It
"helps" newbies while restricting thier abiliy to improve, as well as
interfering with the activities of former newbies.
Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)
In article <0v70m01b9u6aupuih5et8gs7o8tbot52sb@4ax.com>,
Sam <dont@email> wrote:
> >Top posting is never right.
>
> Unless you care about your readers. Maybe you don't.
I *always* care about my readers. And top posting is *never* right. In
fact, if you care about your readers, you will quote a bit of what
you're responding to--in order to make it clear what you're talking
about--and then reply underneath.
What you *won't* do if you care about your readers is top-post, where
they have to work to figure out the flow of the conversation. Remember,
this isn't a real-time conversation; it's a series of postings which may
or may not flow through the internet in a perfect and timely fashion.
It's only polite NOT to assume a perfect and timely flow, and NOT to
assume that the reader has been paying 100% attention to the thread as
if it were some sort of death chess match.
In article <0v70m01b9u6aupuih5et8gs7o8tbot52sb@4ax.com>,
Sam <dont@email> wrote:
> >Top posting is never right.
>
> Unless you care about your readers. Maybe you don't.
I *always* care about my readers. And top posting is *never* right. In
fact, if you care about your readers, you will quote a bit of what
you're responding to--in order to make it clear what you're talking
about--and then reply underneath.
What you *won't* do if you care about your readers is top-post, where
they have to work to figure out the flow of the conversation. Remember,
this isn't a real-time conversation; it's a series of postings which may
or may not flow through the internet in a perfect and timely fashion.
It's only polite NOT to assume a perfect and timely flow, and NOT to
assume that the reader has been paying 100% attention to the thread as
if it were some sort of death chess match.
Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)
In article <0v70m01b9u6aupuih5et8gs7o8tbot52sb@4ax.com>,
Sam <dont@email> wrote:
> Complaining about top-posting is best done with brain engaged. Do you
> have any actual reasons?
I've been giving them.
I noticed that you don't top post.
In article <0v70m01b9u6aupuih5et8gs7o8tbot52sb@4ax.com>,
Sam <dont@email> wrote:
> Complaining about top-posting is best done with brain engaged. Do you
> have any actual reasons?
I've been giving them.
I noticed that you don't top post.
Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 12:11:30 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>In article <0v70m01b9u6aupuih5et8gs7o8tbot52sb@4ax.com>,
> Sam <dont@email> wrote:
>
>> Complaining about top-posting is best done with brain engaged. Do you
>> have any actual reasons?
>
>I've been giving them.
>
>I noticed that you don't top post.
Usually. Also, I don't support anti-intellectual actions, such as
those "reasons" for not top-posting.
Anyway, there's too much nonsense here to continue. Expect this to be
my last post in this thread.
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 12:11:30 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>In article <0v70m01b9u6aupuih5et8gs7o8tbot52sb@4ax.com>,
> Sam <dont@email> wrote:
>
>> Complaining about top-posting is best done with brain engaged. Do you
>> have any actual reasons?
>
>I've been giving them.
>
>I noticed that you don't top post.
Usually. Also, I don't support anti-intellectual actions, such as
those "reasons" for not top-posting.
Anyway, there's too much nonsense here to continue. Expect this to be
my last post in this thread.
Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)
In article <em80m0lncjestrubmrn1ie89t4lj2mvqpe@4ax.com>, Sam <notmail>
wrote:
> >and not to quote
> >appropriately definitely does them a disservice.
> >
>
> Sounds like you're recommending quoting EVERYTHING and snipping
> NOTHING.
What part of "quote appropriately" didn't you understand?
I said "quote appropriately". I didn't say "quote excessively" or
"quote everything". Did I? No, I did not.
But YOU'RE trying to spin it into something I never said. Why? Because
you seem to have an agenda of some kind, and when someone shows the
flaws in your agenda, you spin.
In article <em80m0lncjestrubmrn1ie89t4lj2mvqpe@4ax.com>, Sam <notmail>
wrote:
> >and not to quote
> >appropriately definitely does them a disservice.
> >
>
> Sounds like you're recommending quoting EVERYTHING and snipping
> NOTHING.
What part of "quote appropriately" didn't you understand?
I said "quote appropriately". I didn't say "quote excessively" or
"quote everything". Did I? No, I did not.
But YOU'RE trying to spin it into something I never said. Why? Because
you seem to have an agenda of some kind, and when someone shows the
flaws in your agenda, you spin.
Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)
In article <em80m0lncjestrubmrn1ie89t4lj2mvqpe@4ax.com>, Sam <notmail>
wrote:
> So, bottom-posting (and that complete, ordered quoting) is a way to
> provide support for the brainless and anti-intellectual, while making
> life even more difficult for those without such limitations.
no, bottom posting with appropriately quoted text is polite. To do it
otherwise is rude.
In article <em80m0lncjestrubmrn1ie89t4lj2mvqpe@4ax.com>, Sam <notmail>
wrote:
> So, bottom-posting (and that complete, ordered quoting) is a way to
> provide support for the brainless and anti-intellectual, while making
> life even more difficult for those without such limitations.
no, bottom posting with appropriately quoted text is polite. To do it
otherwise is rude.
Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)
Times have changed old folks.. Get with it or don't complain...
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-F44469.06013402102004@text.usenetserver.com...
> 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.
>
Times have changed old folks.. Get with it or don't complain...
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-F44469.06013402102004@text.usenetserver.com...
> 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.
>
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question What is causing..my New high end (4090 Gpu) laptop, to crash sudden!...plz help
- Started by AsusRogstrix 16 RTX4090!
- Replies: 14
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter