If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#221
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 14:39:33 GMT, Mary Pegg
> wrote: >Andy Turner wrote: >> Self-centredness is having your head so much up your own arse that you >> believe that the preferences of you and others are the only >> preferences that must be allowed and that they must be forced on those >> who have different preferences. > >Nobody's forcing anybody to do anything. Not successfully anyway, but people attempt to. Generally, when their requests go ignored, they seem to stomp their feet and go for the killfile. >Least of all post to, or read, uk.misc. However those that choose to >post to uk.misc are requested to abide by the norms of the group. Here's a question. When a message is cross-posted (as this thread is), between groups, which group's standards should apply? andyt |
Ads |
#222
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 15:17:41 +0000 (UTC), Stephen Gower
> wrote: >Andy Turner > wrote: >>On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 20:52:04 GMT, Mary Pegg wrote: >>>Andy Turner wrote: >>>> mean, would *you* change to top-posting if you joined a group where >>>> most people did? >>> >>>Would I gag if I plunged my head into a bucketful of ****? >>>Why yes, I think I would. >> >>Great. And what relevance does that have? > > Do you have to be so tedious? If Mary had chosen to not be so tedious with the inconclusive reply, we wouldn't find ourselves here. If Mary came forward and actually gave an answer, we wouldn't find ourselves here. Like I explained to Dean, my question was a leading one, which points out the hypocrisy between requesting other people change their preferences and refusing to do so yourself in the opposite situation. Mary's so called metaphor didn't give any clue as to whether he would go along with the preferences request and merely suggested that he would find the group distasteful. This is why it doesn't answer the question and why Dean repeatedly fails (and avoids) to explain how the metaphor works/relate. > I think it is clear Mary is implying > that joining a such a group would be distasteful and would only be > done if forced or for some sort of perverse pleasure. Yes, that's pretty much what I read into it to. However, the question was not WRT how Mary would find the group, but with whether he would adhere to the general preferences he found there. *That* question remains unanswered - by Mary anyway. > With that caveat established, the answer "yes" is there. "yes"? He *would* adhere to the standards? Are you sure, because Dean reckoned that the answer was "no". Seems it's not quite so clear is it..... > [Follow-ups set, since this has nothing to do with cars anymore] Follow-ups restored, since I'm not even in uk.misc and haven't been for some time. andyt |
#223
|
|||
|
|||
"Andy Turner" > wrote in message ... > On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 18:07:06 GMT, Mary Pegg > > wrote: > > >Andy Turner wrote: > > > ><stuff> > > > >I'm bailing. > > Perhaps I'd like to think that you learned something about top-posting > tolerance today, but rarely do the top-post whiners see outside of > their blinkers. > > You're not on your own though Mary, it seems that most > top-post-whiners are afflicted with the same blinkered outlook that > leads them to believe that their preferences must be the only one and > that they're somehow at liberty to tell other people off for not > adhering to *their* preferences. The penny never seems to drop as to > why so many people regularly use top-posting and resist change. I > mean, would *you* change to top-posting if you joined a group where > most people did? > > > andyt > What's most interesting to me here Andy, is that you're arguing a point so strongly (the right for people to top-post if they wish), when you choose to bottom-post. Also interesting is that the top-posting offender that sparked this debate, really doesn't care whether her posts annoy others, and doesn't appear to have sought to understand the background behind this thorny issue. It's true that some groups are more tolerant to top-posting than others, but I believe that if asked not to top-post (especially when cross-posting), that the request be honoured. For everyone's benefit, there is an excellent explanation of the history of top-posting and bottom-posting he http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting |
#224
|
|||
|
|||
"Neil" > wrote in message ... For everyone's benefit, there is an excellent > explanation of the history of top-posting and bottom-posting he > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting > > > More he http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html |
#225
|
|||
|
|||
|
#226
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 16:03:10 -0000, Dave Budd >
wrote: >In article >, says... >> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 14:39:33 GMT, Mary Pegg >> > wrote: >> >> >Andy Turner wrote: >> >> Self-centredness is having your head so much up your own arse that you >> >> believe that the preferences of you and others are the only >> >> preferences that must be allowed and that they must be forced on those >> >> who have different preferences. >> > >> >Nobody's forcing anybody to do anything. >> >> Not successfully anyway, but people attempt to. Generally, when their >> requests go ignored, they seem to stomp their feet and go for the >> killfile. >> >> >> >Least of all post to, or read, uk.misc. However those that choose to >> >post to uk.misc are requested to abide by the norms of the group. >> >> Here's a question. When a message is cross-posted (as this thread is), >> between groups, which group's standards should apply? > >I'll let you know when I see an RFD or some docs from a major >vendor which suggests top-posting as the correct way to go. I was looking for an opinion really, but nevermind if you really need and RFD to tell you everything. andyt |
#227
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 10:55:35 -0500, "Neil" >
wrote: > >"Andy Turner" > wrote in message .. . >> You're not on your own though Mary, it seems that most >> top-post-whiners are afflicted with the same blinkered outlook that >> leads them to believe that their preferences must be the only one and >> that they're somehow at liberty to tell other people off for not >> adhering to *their* preferences. The penny never seems to drop as to >> why so many people regularly use top-posting and resist change. I >> mean, would *you* change to top-posting if you joined a group where >> most people did? >> > >What's most interesting to me here Andy, is that you're arguing a point so >strongly (the right for people to top-post if they wish), when you choose to >bottom-post. Sure, although I'd say that I tend to 'interleave' post rather than bottom post. I break down posts into points and reply to them individually, rather than putting all my text at the bottom. I prefer this method since it reflects the way I like to write. However, it won't suit everyone, so I don't expect everyone else to follow it. I have been known to top-post when the nature of my reply (or even of the thread I'm replying to), means that it makes more sense. Top posting has its advantages (attributions make a lot more sense for example). But yes, as you say, I'm not arguing for top-posting at all, I'm just saying that there doesn't have to be only one style of post, that you can't try to enforce your own preferences on other people and you certainly can't be surprised if they resist your request (especially if you admit that you would ignore the opposite request). It's simply a case of getting used to more than one style of post, learning more than one trick as it were. Before long you won't even notice what the style is, you'll simply read the text that was written - and that is *surely* what we're here for. > Also interesting is that the top-posting offender that sparked > this debate, really doesn't care whether her posts annoy others, and > doesn't appear to have sought to understand the background behind > this thorny issue. Nor should they really care. The problem at least equally lies with those who choose to get upset by such trivial matters. The thing that the TPWs have to get into their heads is that there is no right/wrong, it's just different styles, different preferences. The huff that some people get into about other people's preferences is quite frankly bizarre. Do the whiners believe that top-posters are doing it just to annoy them or something? Or, could it just be that they prefer that style and find it easier? I'd love to see top-post-whiners exercising the same kind of ridiculous prejudice in real life and whining at people for having different accents or other different preferences. >It's true that some groups are more tolerant to top-posting than others, but >I believe that if asked not to top-post (especially when cross-posting), >that the request be honoured. Personally I think it's extremely ignorant to make such requests of total strangers. This is shown in the nature of the replies that such requests are generally met with. > For everyone's benefit, there is an excellent > explanation of the history of top-posting and > bottom-posting he > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting Cheers. I'm particularly intrigued by one section since it reflects what I've long since said - that the emergence and popularity of top-posting is simply a result the changing demographics and usage patterns of internet subscribers - in a nutshell I'd say "You can't expect even usenet to operate like it did in 1985. Times have changed, get with the program". Here's the quote: "Objections to top-posting, as a general rule, seem to come from persons who first went online in the earlier days of Usenet, and in communities that date to Usenet's early days, among the most vehement communities those in the Usenet comp.lang hierarchy, especially comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++. Etiquette is looser (as is almost everything) in the alt hierarchy. Newer online participants, especially those with limited experience of Usenet, tend as a general rule, to be less sensitive to top-posting, and tend to reject any argument against top-posting as irrelevant." andyt |
#228
|
|||
|
|||
Andy Turner wrote:
> Here's a question. When a message is cross-posted (as this thread is), > between groups, which group's standards should apply? All that are applicable. If it is not possible to post in a mutually acceptable manner, then one should not post at all. -- Happy, sad, cross and concentrating. |
#229
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 17:26:30 GMT, Mary Pegg
> wrote: >Andy Turner wrote: > >> Here's a question. When a message is cross-posted (as this thread is), >> between groups, which group's standards should apply? > >All that are applicable. If it is not possible to post in a mutually >acceptable manner, then one should not post at all. LOL! So when replying to this thread, did you check the FAQs of all groups it's posted to? Really? andyt |
#230
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Mc" > wrote in message ... > "Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message > news >> >> "Julian Edge" > wrote in message >> ... >> > "Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message >> > >> > > Sorry to have sounded so harsh. >> > >> > No worries! (Never apologise, never explain!) >> > >> >> Now you're making me feel bad. I all but called you an idiot, and you are >> telling me not to apologize - except you spell it wrong ;-) >> > > I apologise but are you Merkin? > He spelt it in English, you see. > I know. And, yes, I am from the Colonies. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WANT TO BUT A SPYDER......? | Bagger | Chrysler | 0 | January 13th 05 07:22 PM |