USB2 HDTV

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

David wrote:
> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
> news:1146kaaj0tbp41c@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>RicSeyler wrote:
>>
>>>LOLOLOL
>>>NOW That's just MEAN!!! hehehe
>>>
>>>I can understand some people being aggravated seeing what they aren't
>>>used to or expecting,
>>>I don't take it personally, but I don't want to "across the board" bottom
>>>post or kill HTML just
>>>for the few that get aggravated. Hope that doesn't make me a bad/selfish
>>>person. ;-)
>>>
>>
>>Actually, it does.
>>
>>Matthew
>
>

Many lines gratuitously cut and pasted .. snipped


> What? ;-)

Do you have a point or are you just wasting bandwidth?

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

LOLOLOL OK.
ooooooohhhh.... the mean, awful top poster is
going to corrupt the internet and society.

Matthew L. Martin wrote:

> RicSeyler wrote:
>
>>
>> LOLOLOL
>> NOW That's just MEAN!!! hehehe
>>
>> I can understand some people being aggravated seeing what they aren't
>> used to or expecting,
>> I don't take it personally, but I don't want to "across the board"
>> bottom post or kill HTML just
>> for the few that get aggravated. Hope that doesn't make me a
>> bad/selfish person. ;-)
>>
>
> Actually, it does.
>
> Matthew


--
Ric Seyler

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

In article <KcudnXMpV-7z3N7fRVn-oQ@comcast.com>, David wrote:
> My Outlook Express news reader defaults to top posting, like here.
>
What sort of an excuse is that? I think my car would probably "default" to
running off the side of the road if I didn't grab the steering wheel and take
control. You don't *have* to default to using Outlook Express in its native
state, or even to use it at all. Your writings should be an expression of
*your* thoughts and intentions, not those of the people that wrote your
computer software.

Rod.

 

[David]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com> wrote in message
news:VA.00000975.01041e74@escapetime.nospam.plus.com...
> In article <KcudnXMpV-7z3N7fRVn-oQ@comcast.com>, David wrote:
>> My Outlook Express news reader defaults to top posting, like here.
>>
> What sort of an excuse is that? I think my car would probably "default" to
> running off the side of the road if I didn't grab the steering wheel and
> take
> control. You don't *have* to default to using Outlook Express in its
> native
> state, or even to use it at all. Your writings should be an expression of
> *your* thoughts and intentions, not those of the people that wrote your
> computer software.
>
> Rod.

Well, my thought and intentions are that I would prefer top posting because
it's easier.
[although I almost never do].

>You don't *have* to default to using Outlook Express in its native
> state,"

I didn't know OE was customizable in this regard. How do you do that?

 

[Ivan]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

My pet hate is people who delete a thread and author and then post a reply,
so one very often doesn't really have much of a clue to whom, or even on
what particular item they're actually replying to.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

LOLOLOL
You Bastard!!

This whole issue is downright silly!?!

Ivan wrote:

>My pet hate is people who delete a thread and author and then post a reply,
>so one very often doesn't really have much of a clue to whom, or even on
>what particular item they're actually replying to.
>
>
>
>

--
Ric Seyler

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

A lot of people put down top posting, and they cite some old document that
declares bottom posting to be the correct way to post. However, I notice
that nearly all of the people who complain merely cite the old document or
say it "is considered bad usenettiquette". Considered bad by whom? I feel
like the complainers themselves don't even care, they just want to point out
that its wrong.

Personally, I like top posting, but I don't object to bottom posting either.
With top posting I don't have to scroll down to the bottom to read the new
input. I know what the previous post said, because I read it, I dont need
to read it again. Every newsreader I have ever used has has displayed
threads in such a way that I can visually see who is replying to who.

I wish people could be more tolerant of others, its really not a big deal.

--Dan

"Alex Perez" <aperez@gmailDAWT.com> wrote in message
news:yRl0e.12001$m31.124547@typhoon.sonic.net...
> Top posting is considered bad usenettiquette. (I do so here to make this
> point ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

dg wrote:

>
> I wish people could be more tolerant of others, its really not a big deal.
>

Then please try to be more tolerant of others.

Please don't top post.

No. I'm not singling you out.

>Dave: Oh! Now it makes sense to me. Okay! No more top-posting for me!
> Bob: It's annoying because it reverses the normal order of
> conversation. In fact, many people ignore top-posted articles.
>> Dave: What's so wrong with that?
>>> Bob: That's posting your response *before* the article you're
>>> quoting.
>>>> Dave: People keep bugging me about "top-posting." What does that
>>>> mean?
>>>>> A: Top posters.
>>>>>> Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

dg wrote:
> A lot of people put down top posting, and they cite some old document that
> declares bottom posting to be the correct way to post. However, I notice
> that nearly all of the people who complain merely cite the old document or
> say it "is considered bad usenettiquette". Considered bad by whom? I feel
> like the complainers themselves don't even care, they just want to point out
> that its wrong.

No, it's not that at all. I am no fan of convention for the sake of
convention. It breaks up the linearity of the discussion, because you
have no idea which paragraph or sentence the top-poster is replying to.
It makes keeping track of a very complex thread (especially for someone
who might not want to/have time to read the ENTIRE [huge] thread)

>
> Personally, I like top posting, but I don't object to bottom posting either.
> With top posting I don't have to scroll down to the bottom to read the new
> input. I know what the previous post said, because I read it, I dont need
> to read it again. Every newsreader I have ever used has has displayed
> threads in such a way that I can visually see who is replying to who.

Yes, but that's only half of the problem. Keeping track of what's said
in reply to what is the other problem. Top posting really isn't a
problem if context is not important (for instance, if you have a
one-sentence reply or something of the sort). However, in the vast
majority of circumstances I've seen, it tends to make more sense because
it actually allows you to understand how the conversation flows, and it
allows me, as a replier, to read a post and compose replies in logically
distinct units.
>
> I wish people could be more tolerant of others, its really not a big deal.

There are certainly circumstances where it isn't a big deal. When you
edit a book, it makes more logical sense to read in-line comments than
comments which are on a separate page and have no reference to the page
number which is being commented on.

In the future, it also would do a lot of you some good to not see
hostility where there isn't any. Asking someone to not top-post is not a
hostile act any more than asking someone who is talking on their
cell-phone in a restaurant to not be so loud. It was a simple suggestion
or request, and it needn't be followed, because it's a request, not a
demand.

Cheers,
Alex Perez

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

I agree about it being a suggestion and that's it. And I took it as such.
But me being the one that apparently started this whole thing, I think I
need
to say in my defense, if you notice my post(s) are done in such a way
that it
retained the linearity of the discussion(s). And actually makes the thread
easier to follow.

I trimmed he fat and left the relevant part I was replying to, plus it
is viewable without
and scrolling (the reply and what was being replied to).

So what your saying here doesn't apply to "top posters" as a cross
section............

So if one is critiquing what I have specifically done here, I don't see
any problem
with any linearity of the thread. And would seem to be a complaint, just
to be complaining
in this particular instance. FWIW

Alex Perez wrote:

>
> No, it's not that at all. I am no fan of convention for the sake of
> convention. It breaks up the linearity of the discussion, because you
> have no idea which paragraph or sentence the top-poster is replying
> to. It makes keeping track of a very complex thread (especially for
> someone who might not want to/have time to read the ENTIRE [huge] thread)


--
Ric Seyler

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Alex Perez" <aperez@gmailDAWT.com> wrote in message
news:r9_0e.12269$m31.126077@typhoon.sonic.net...
> hostility where there isn't any. Asking someone to not top-post is not a
> hostile act any more than asking someone who is talking on their
> cell-phone in a restaurant to not be so loud. It was a simple suggestion
> or request, and it needn't be followed, because it's a request, not a
> demand.

Why would anybody ask somebody on a cell phone to be quiet? That just
doesn't make any sense, as if talking to a person on the phone is less
important than a face to face conversation. That is ridiculous. Just as
ridiculous as you asking people not to top post.

--Dan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"RicSeyler" <ricseyler@SPAMgulf.net> wrote in message
news:WqH0e.86486$%Y4.26670@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> 14.4's & PPB and didn't do HTML. But this is the 21st Century, we were
> supposed
> to have flying cars and meals in pill form by now! hehehe

I want my damn flying car! They told us we would have flying cars in the
year 2000 and damn it, I want one! I need to know just who is resoponsible
for this, blame needs to be placed.

--Dan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

dg wrote:
> "Alex Perez" <aperez@gmailDAWT.com> wrote in message
> news:r9_0e.12269$m31.126077@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
>>hostility where there isn't any. Asking someone to not top-post is not a
>>hostile act any more than asking someone who is talking on their
>>cell-phone in a restaurant to not be so loud. It was a simple suggestion
>>or request, and it needn't be followed, because it's a request, not a
>>demand.
>
>
> Why would anybody ask somebody on a cell phone to be quiet? That just
> doesn't make any sense, as if talking to a person on the phone is less
> important than a face to face conversation. That is ridiculous. Just as
> ridiculous as you asking people not to top post.
Sorry, I meant *MORE* quiet, obviously. We've all experienced the people
who feel the need to talk at twice their normal volume to someone on the
phone because they think it makes some sort of actual difference
(usually, it results in overmodulation, which makes the voice codec
perform spectactularly shitty).

Asking someone who is talking on the phone to someone at a ridiculous
volume to reduce their volume is no different than reminding a rude
patron sitting behind you in a restaurant who is also simply being an
insensitive jackass by blabbing at the proverbial "11". If you can't
hold a conversation with someone on the phone at the same volume as you
would with someone sitting across from you in a restaurant, you ought
not be doing the world a disservice by having a discussion about
something as inconsequential as which buffets are the best in Vegas
right in the middle of a upper middle-class restaurant.

It's called common courtesy, and *reaches into the overused cliche bin*,
clearly, it's not so common.

 

[David]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3aivtoF6bk9npU1@individual.net...
> My pet hate is people who delete a thread and author and then post a
> reply,
> so one very often doesn't really have much of a clue to whom, or even on
> what particular item they're actually replying to.
>
>

LOL

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

In article <L4mdndBZ45YBn9nfRVn-iA@comcast.com>, David wrote:
> >You don't *have* to default to using Outlook Express in its native
> > state,"
>
> I didn't know OE was customizable in this regard. How do you do that?

I've no idea. I don't use it.

There are some advantages in standardisation, but using any Microsoft
product in its default state seems to introduce a particular
vulnerability in that almost the entire planet will be keeping all
their personal data in the same format in the same places on their hard
drives, so the mischief makers will know exactly where to look for it.
I'm not quite ready to migrate away from Windows, but I've never used
Outlook Express.

There are dozens of alternative newsreaders and email programs (or both
functions combined), many of them free, or available in free versions.
Even the paid versions are usually not expensive. Some of them have the
useful quality of being "self-contained" in that all the files required
to make them work reside in the same folder system, i.e. they don't
depend on DLL or INI files in system areas, and so an entire
installation can be backed up to another computer in a form that is
immediately usable, by simply copying it.

These programs are available in various places for immediate download,
so you could be trying one out in minutes without leaving your house.
Try "Agent" from www.forteinc.com or "Thunderbird" from www.mozilla.com
for starters, or just type something like "free newsreader" or "free
email software" into Google, and then there are of course more
appropriate discussion areas for further advice.

Rod.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

In article <g8Z0e.1587$FN4.949@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, Dg wrote:
> A lot of people put down top posting, and they cite some old document that
> declares bottom posting to be the correct way to post.

Nearly every document ever written in English, I would have thought. I can
recall being taught as a young child more than half a century ago that
writing is carried out from top left to bottom right. In every book I've ever
read that takes the form of a linear narrative, the march of time proceeds
down the page, not up, and in notebooks, diaries and the like, notes and
postscripts are nearly always put underneath the text to which they relate.
Any other presentation seems perverse and difficult to follow.

Rod.

 

[Badger]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

You are correct. Every "single" post in a thread is written upper left
and top down. I've never seen a post that doesn't flow that way,
however...

In the court house where I pull case records, the latest information
is always on top of the stack.

At my office, all our files are done latest in front(top) to oldest.
That way if you're, following, a particular case(thread), or looking
for a piece of information, everything is newest to oldest, and you
don't have to wade through all the things you've already seen.
Also, it's not that difficult to, if you're not familiar with the
items, to start at the back and work your way forward.

Clay

"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com> wrote in message
news:VA.0000097b.004d0a1b@escapetime.nospam.plus.com...
> In article <g8Z0e.1587$FN4.949@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, Dg
wrote:
> > A lot of people put down top posting, and they cite some old
document that
> > declares bottom posting to be the correct way to post.
>
> Nearly every document ever written in English, I would have thought.
I can
> recall being taught as a young child more than half a century ago
that
> writing is carried out from top left to bottom right. In every book
I've ever
> read that takes the form of a linear narrative, the march of time
proceeds
> down the page, not up, and in notebooks, diaries and the like, notes
and
> postscripts are nearly always put underneath the text to which they
relate.
> Any other presentation seems perverse and difficult to follow.
>
> Rod.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Good answer, Badger. I'm with you ...

I am insulted by, and weary of the "brain-dead" bottom-feeders who can't
carry a thought from one message to the next. {winfield}


Badger wrote:
> You are correct. Every "single" post in a thread is written upper left
> and top down. I've never seen a post that doesn't flow that way,
> however...
>
> In the court house where I pull case records, the latest information
> is always on top of the stack.
>
> At my office, all our files are done latest in front(top) to oldest.
> That way if you're, following, a particular case(thread), or looking
> for a piece of information, everything is newest to oldest, and you
> don't have to wade through all the things you've already seen.
> Also, it's not that difficult to, if you're not familiar with the
> items, to start at the back and work your way forward.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

That's exactly how it was done all the years I worked for GM.
And how I do it at my shop.
And how my mother (retired Corporate CPA) files.
And how Doctor/Patient Files are done.


Badger wrote:

>You are correct. Every "single" post in a thread is written upper left
>and top down. I've never seen a post that doesn't flow that way,
>however...
>
>In the court house where I pull case records, the latest information
>is always on top of the stack.
>
>At my office, all our files are done latest in front(top) to oldest.
>That way if you're, following, a particular case(thread), or looking
>for a piece of information, everything is newest to oldest, and you
>don't have to wade through all the things you've already seen.
>Also, it's not that difficult to, if you're not familiar with the
>items, to start at the back and work your way forward.
>
>
>

--
Ric Seyler

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Badger wrote:
> You are correct. Every "single" post in a thread is written upper left
> and top down. I've never seen a post that doesn't flow that way,
> however...

You do know that usenet delivers articles asynchronously, don't you? You
also know that usenet does not guarantee the complete propagation of any
article, don't you?

You might consider that just because top posting is easier for you, most
of your readers end up having to scroll down to see what it is that you
are responding to.

I guess you feel that you convenience and time are more valuable than
the convenience and time of your readers. That will generally limit the
number of people who read your posts. Many people killfile top posters
who would rather top post than communicate effectively.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game