| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sun Nov 06, 2005 10:18 pm Post subject:
Re: TRIM your replies please |
|
|
Mike RIvers wrote:
| Quote: | Kurt Albershardt wrote:
Top posting and no trimming is the standard for corporate use.
Why? > Because it's more efficient.
No, it's the standard because that's how Microsoft did it.
But there's a cursor. You can put it wherever you want and delete
what you don't want to quote, and write your response wherever you
want. I'm posting from Google these days and it quotes the whole
original message, but I take control. I don't just start writing at
the bottom of the message.
That's why you have what's called an editor hopefully. I |
never understood why it was such a problem for people. I
could understand in the days of landline bbs's when/if the
poor guy was reading/replying online and the only message
editor the board made available was one of those funky line
editors, kind of a bastard stepchild of Edlin. IIRC Maximus
BBS had a rather horrible line editor, so bad it goit me to
trying out offline readers right away.
Richard WEbb,
Electric SPider Productions
Replace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real
email address.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
hank alrich
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 07, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: TRIM your replies please |
|
|
John L Rice wrote:
| Quote: | Actually, if everyone would get over the antiquated practice of bottom
posting, down scrolling wouldn't be an issue.
|
Nothing "antiquated" about it; review what Richard Webb, who is blind,
has said aabout it, and decide whether or not we can be courteous enough
to help. Replies read well when they fall in context.
--
ha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roger W. Norman
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 08, 2005 11:51 pm Post subject:
Re: TRIM your replies please |
|
|
Perhaps, Hank, people with special circumstances should be considered by the
people developing the software and allow the ability of moving "quoted"
portions to the top, rather than specifying by default that the norm do
things based on what the minority are restricted to. I'm not trying to be
nasty. I'm just saying that if 500 people have to do something to make a
person a part of the group, which is a software based group, then it's more
likely the lack of the software and not the inclinations of the people
involved.
I've lived this with trying to get some of the structures in place during
the mid/late 80s for accomodating vets in wheel chairs, etc. None of them
wanted to be treated as special by the majority of people, but certain
things couldn't be accomplished without something of an involvement with
people without physical problems. I'm not saying it's not nice to help open
a door for someone on crutches, but no one who has a permanent disability
wants to become dependant upon others for their own well being and in many
cases it becomes a sore point for them. At least out of the hundreds I've
met. So if it comes down to the inclusion of one person or even a small
percentage of people that may wish to partake of the conversation, then what
we need to do is get the software people to pay attention and get them to do
something about it.
We already have visually impaired selections available from Win95 on, so
it's possible for the software people to somehow take this into
consideration.
I know, it sounds like I'm beating up on disabled people, but I'm not. I'm
pointing the finger at the right people to point the finger at and it will
take the same level of education to have the disabled enjoy their lives
without having the rest of us have to adapt other methods to accomodate
them, other than out of personal common courtesy. One of the greatest
complaints I've run into from disabled vets is that everyone goes out of
their way to "somehow" try to make their lives easier. It just doesn't
work. They don't need help getting through doors or reading emails. They
need recognition that their circumstances are different and thus require
alternatives to depending on others to make their lives easier.
We see it in cochlear implants for the hearing impaired, new methods of
providing some level of sight for the sightless, and we can't ignore the
possibility that software can also be configured for those that need
specialized configuration.
Once those of us who are somewhat normal (and I'm not talking about just on
the outside) then we have the greater advantage to effect change than the
far fewer who are truly disabled. Doctors are researching and perfecting
eye movement as cursor movement for paraplegics and have come a long way,
but it's those of us that can type 60 wpm that will present a front that
can't be ignored by those developing software which includes those who need
the help.
Lots of the people who present ideas, experience and such here and may be
disabled could use our help in a proactive way. Maybe the better way to be
proactive would be to change the perceptions of the software vendors who
limit the abilities of the software because they don't perceive the need.
Those of us with full faculties is more deserving of the ability to express
ideas than those who don't have full control of theirs.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"Is our children learning"
President George W. Bush
"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1h5mao1.3tusmz1j5ljpiN%walkinay@thegrid.net...
| Quote: | John L Rice wrote:
Actually, if everyone would get over the antiquated practice of bottom
posting, down scrolling wouldn't be an issue.
Nothing "antiquated" about it; review what Richard Webb, who is blind,
has said aabout it, and decide whether or not we can be courteous enough
to help. Replies read well when they fall in context.
--
ha |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roger W. Norman
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 08, 2005 11:57 pm Post subject:
Re: TRIM your replies please |
|
|
Should have been "Those of us with full faculties aren't more deserving of
the ability to express ideas than those who don't have full control of
theirs."
Sorry, missed it in the proofing.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"Is our children learning"
President George W. Bush
"Roger W. Norman" <Roger@SirMusicStudio.com> wrote in message
news:ZKydnYCoKIcpeO3eRVn-hg@rcn.net...
| Quote: | Perhaps, Hank, people with special circumstances should be considered by
the
people developing the software and allow the ability of moving "quoted"
portions to the top, rather than specifying by default that the norm do
things based on what the minority are restricted to. I'm not trying to be
nasty. I'm just saying that if 500 people have to do something to make a
person a part of the group, which is a software based group, then it's
more
likely the lack of the software and not the inclinations of the people
involved.
I've lived this with trying to get some of the structures in place during
the mid/late 80s for accomodating vets in wheel chairs, etc. None of them
wanted to be treated as special by the majority of people, but certain
things couldn't be accomplished without something of an involvement with
people without physical problems. I'm not saying it's not nice to help
open
a door for someone on crutches, but no one who has a permanent disability
wants to become dependant upon others for their own well being and in many
cases it becomes a sore point for them. At least out of the hundreds I've
met. So if it comes down to the inclusion of one person or even a small
percentage of people that may wish to partake of the conversation, then
what
we need to do is get the software people to pay attention and get them to
do
something about it.
We already have visually impaired selections available from Win95 on, so
it's possible for the software people to somehow take this into
consideration.
I know, it sounds like I'm beating up on disabled people, but I'm not.
I'm
pointing the finger at the right people to point the finger at and it will
take the same level of education to have the disabled enjoy their lives
without having the rest of us have to adapt other methods to accomodate
them, other than out of personal common courtesy. One of the greatest
complaints I've run into from disabled vets is that everyone goes out of
their way to "somehow" try to make their lives easier. It just doesn't
work. They don't need help getting through doors or reading emails. They
need recognition that their circumstances are different and thus require
alternatives to depending on others to make their lives easier.
We see it in cochlear implants for the hearing impaired, new methods of
providing some level of sight for the sightless, and we can't ignore the
possibility that software can also be configured for those that need
specialized configuration.
Once those of us who are somewhat normal (and I'm not talking about just
on
the outside) then we have the greater advantage to effect change than the
far fewer who are truly disabled. Doctors are researching and perfecting
eye movement as cursor movement for paraplegics and have come a long way,
but it's those of us that can type 60 wpm that will present a front that
can't be ignored by those developing software which includes those who
need
the help.
Lots of the people who present ideas, experience and such here and may be
disabled could use our help in a proactive way. Maybe the better way to
be
proactive would be to change the perceptions of the software vendors who
limit the abilities of the software because they don't perceive the need.
Those of us with full faculties is more deserving of the ability to
express
ideas than those who don't have full control of theirs.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"Is our children learning"
President George W. Bush
"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1h5mao1.3tusmz1j5ljpiN%walkinay@thegrid.net...
John L Rice wrote:
Actually, if everyone would get over the antiquated practice of bottom
posting, down scrolling wouldn't be an issue.
Nothing "antiquated" about it; review what Richard Webb, who is blind,
has said aabout it, and decide whether or not we can be courteous enough
to help. Replies read well when they fall in context.
--
ha
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott Dorsey
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:07 am Post subject:
Re: TRIM your replies please |
|
|
Roger W. Norman <Roger@SirMusicStudio.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Should have been "Those of us with full faculties aren't more deserving of
the ability to express ideas than those who don't have full control of
theirs."
|
Look, Roger... the whole edit-and-bottom-post protocol was standard here
on Usenet, years before any of us got here. Just use it and stop fighting.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hank alrich
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:47 am Post subject:
Re: TRIM your replies please |
|
|
Roger W. Norman wrote:
| Quote: | Then again, John, the reason you and I can trade 300 MB of drumming data is
because we opted for the higher bandwidth years ago. Perhaps it's a little
too narcisistic to assume that others should be able to keep up with us, or
would chose to do so in the first place?
|
It might be naive for y'all to assume others even have such an option in
any sensible fashion. Then, how about Richard Webb wanting to
participate? I think his contributions are worth enough that I am
willing to take time on my end to put my comments in context, so that
his reader can deliver dialog that makes sense, in context.
--
ha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hank alrich
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:47 am Post subject:
Re: TRIM your replies please |
|
|
Roger W. Norman wrote:
| Quote: | Perhaps, Hank, people with special circumstances should be considered by the
people developing the software and allow the ability of moving "quoted"
portions to the top, rather than specifying by default that the norm do
things based on what the minority are restricted to. I'm not trying to be
nasty. I'm just saying that if 500 people have to do something to make a
person a part of the group, which is a software based group, then it's more
likely the lack of the software and not the inclinations of the people
involved.
|
One more time, Roger: posting replies in context holds to the form of
conversation - comments, replies, further replies, all in order such
that one can follow the line of so-called thinking. I'm just saying that
you got into a lazy habit working in the corporate world where
MicroShaft sets things up as if humans were bots. How much trouble is it
to put replies in context? Too much? Really...
--
ha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hank alrich
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:47 am Post subject:
Re: TRIM your replies please |
|
|
Scott Dorsey wrote:
| Quote: | Roger W. Norman wrote:
Should have been "Those of us with full faculties aren't more deserving of
the ability to express ideas than those who don't have full control of
theirs."
Look, Roger... the whole edit-and-bottom-post protocol was standard here
on Usenet, years before any of us got here. Just use it and stop fighting.
|
Thank you, Scott. Fufck Micro$oft and their blatant disregard for
existing standards. I don't mind standards evolving to make some
progress, but that isn't what M$ is about.
--
ha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Cain
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:26 am Post subject:
Re: TRIM your replies please |
|
|
Roger W. Norman wrote:
| Quote: | The why isn't because it's more efficient in terms of time or bandwidth.
It's more efficient because it doesn't require that you go back to look for
individual posts in order to find out what the conversation was about.
|
What's more efficient? To what are you referring here?
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Cain
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:28 am Post subject:
Re: TRIM your replies please |
|
|
Roger W. Norman wrote:
| Quote: | Should have been "Those of us with full faculties aren't more deserving of
the ability to express ideas than those who don't have full control of
theirs."
|
What should have been?
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ben Bradley
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:25 am Post subject:
Re: TRIM your replies please |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 13:26:58 -0800, Bob Cain
<arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Roger W. Norman wrote:
The why isn't because it's more efficient in terms of time or bandwidth.
It's more efficient because it doesn't require that you go back to look for
individual posts in order to find out what the conversation was about.
What's more efficient?
|
Trimming posts. Like you did with Roger's. :) Or actually, I think
he's saying NOT trimming posts is more efficient of a reader's time,
such as when he/she starts reading in the middle of a thread or
perhaps it has started back up after being dormant for weeks.
| Quote: | To what are you referring here?
|
ISTM (It seems to me?) he's talking about trimming posts (efficient
of bandwidth, which is less important to most of us these days) vs.
leaving a cascade of replied-to posts in one's message so readers
don't have to go back to to previous posts to see what previous
posters said.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dr. Dolittle
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: TRIM your replies please |
|
|
Roger, I just happen to click on your post and have no idea who or what
you are responding to.
Roger W. Norman wrote:
| Quote: | Now you know about why one should do top posting, even if it offends those
who wish to scroll through lines and lines of bullshit you just read.
I mean, I can go on and on, so why pay attention to scrolling through my
posts to say "bullshit"?
If individual pieces of a post are in contention, then yes, include the
original post, but it's not like this shit is set in concrete. It takes a
change of paradigm and it's not that hard to do.
Of course, top posting also seems to promote bigger and bigger posts because
one simply "quotes" the original post they are responding to. But I suggest
that it's easier to delete the post at the bottom or simply turn off
"quoting" and answer the question.
Not the norm from an environment that originally had the cursor end up at
the bottom of an email, but it's a more efficient way to communicate today.
After all, bottom posting comes from the early days of email and DARPA.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"Is our children learning"
President George W. Bush
"John L Rice" <Drummer@ImJohn.com> wrote in message
news:11mqaaai6pul85c@corp.supernews.com...
Actually, if everyone would get over the antiquated practice of bottom
posting, down scrolling wouldn't be an issue.
--
John L Rice
www.DeliriumFix.com
blackburst@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1131225768.196236.188800@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Lorin:
I did that in a hot debate on another NG and got accused of "snipping".
But I agree with you. Why not cut the bandwidth a bit? If the reader
wants more of the original post, they can go back earlier in the
thread.
Lorin David Schultz wrote:
I'm very grateful to everyone who chooses to share their experience
here, but I would be even more grateful if everyone took the extra
couple of seconds to trim down the post to which they're replying.
It's frustrating to scroll through page after page of quoted text to
find a two line response. Sometimes I can't even understand the reply,
because I can't figure out which part of the ten page quote the writer
is responding to.
I now just skip any post that doesn't have new content within the first
screen.
--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good
(Remove spamblock to reply)
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Crowley
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: TRIM your replies please |
|
|
"Dr. Dolittle" wrote ...
| Quote: | Roger, I just happen to click on your post and have no idea who or what
you are responding to.
|
Top-posting and failure to trim seem to go hand-in-glove. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John L Rice
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: TRIM your replies please |
|
|
Well, you could scroll down and read previous parts of the thread in Roger's
post OR you could just start at the beginning of the thread and read the
whole thing.
If it's May and you turn on the TV and start watching a series you've never
seen before and can't under what's going on, do you write the TV studio and
suggest that they give a complete synopsis of the series at the beginning of
every show? Of if you open a book for the first time at chapter 10 and
can't understand what they are talking about do you write the publisher to
request they devise a way to keep you from opening the book in the wrong
place?
I'm not totally against any one technique or person for that matter, . . .
..but lately . . . . . I found myself to not be totally for any one or
anything in particular either. And I'm getting pretty annoyed with
everything in general.
--
John L Rice
www.DeliriumFix.com
"Dr. Dolittle" <pdo@spamblaster.not> wrote in message
news:9Macf.14602$8K4.9082@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
| Quote: | Roger, I just happen to click on your post and have no idea who or what
you are responding to.
Roger W. Norman wrote:
Now you know about why one should do top posting, even if it offends
those
who wish to scroll through lines and lines of bullshit you just read.
I mean, I can go on and on, so why pay attention to scrolling through my
posts to say "bullshit"?
If individual pieces of a post are in contention, then yes, include the
original post, but it's not like this shit is set in concrete. It takes
a
change of paradigm and it's not that hard to do.
Of course, top posting also seems to promote bigger and bigger posts
because
one simply "quotes" the original post they are responding to. But I
suggest
that it's easier to delete the post at the bottom or simply turn off
"quoting" and answer the question.
Not the norm from an environment that originally had the cursor end up at
the bottom of an email, but it's a more efficient way to communicate
today.
After all, bottom posting comes from the early days of email and DARPA.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"Is our children learning"
President George W. Bush
"John L Rice" <Drummer@ImJohn.com> wrote in message
news:11mqaaai6pul85c@corp.supernews.com...
Actually, if everyone would get over the antiquated practice of bottom
posting, down scrolling wouldn't be an issue.
--
John L Rice
www.DeliriumFix.com
blackburst@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1131225768.196236.188800@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Lorin:
I did that in a hot debate on another NG and got accused of "snipping".
But I agree with you. Why not cut the bandwidth a bit? If the reader
wants more of the original post, they can go back earlier in the
thread.
Lorin David Schultz wrote:
I'm very grateful to everyone who chooses to share their experience
here, but I would be even more grateful if everyone took the extra
couple of seconds to trim down the post to which they're replying.
It's frustrating to scroll through page after page of quoted text to
find a two line response. Sometimes I can't even understand the reply,
because I can't figure out which part of the ten page quote the writer
is responding to.
I now just skip any post that doesn't have new content within the first
screen.
--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good
(Remove spamblock to reply)
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lorin David Schultz
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 11:32 pm Post subject:
Re: TRIM your replies please |
|
|
"John L Rice" <Drummer@ImJohn.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
. .maybe we should reduce the automobile speed limit in the city to
10 MPH so the 5 people who don't have cars can use their horse and
buggy? ( and NO, I've never lived near an Amish community ;-)
|
Bandwidth is still a bit of an issue for me, even with DSL, just because
I have to read offline so download time sometimes becomes an issue.
The bigger issue is just convenience though. I only get to check in
occasionally, so I usually have a lot of messages to go through.
Untrimmed replies require scrolling around, which for me means taking my
hands off the keyboard and grabbing the mouse. After a couple hundred
messages I just start skipping those.
It's no big deal, but it means that at least some of us are ignoring
certain posters. Then again, I suspect that those who can't be bothered
to make their posts presentable probably aren't putting a lot of thought
into what they type anyway.
--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good
(Remove spamblock to reply) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in