Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

WHAT kind of paranoia is this??

Expand Messages
  • Jose Bonanca
    Or are you _trying_ to look stupid? ;-) So far you have advertised that people is using too much bandwidth but now you started to call names... this is what is
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Or are you _trying_ to look stupid? ;-)
       
       
       
      So far you have advertised that people is using too much bandwidth but now you started to call names... this is what is incredible. You want to educate your way a whole reflector.
      Many times its much faster just to hit REPLY, if you know what it means, and besides in your last post you did the same thing.
       
      Think about not to be annoyed and do not annoy us.
       
      Just enjoy.
       


      --
      Jose
    • Len Warner
      ... Paranoia: A game for the whole family, and anyone else who might be watching. Just because you re paranoid doesn t mean they re not out to get you. ... No,
      Message 2 of 2 , Aug 2, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        At 2:47 am ((PDT)) Wed Aug 1, 2007, Jose Bonanca wrote:
        >2. WHAT kind of paranoia is this??

        Paranoia: A game for the whole family, and
        anyone else who might be watching.

        Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean
        they're not out to get you.

        > Posted by: "Jose Bonanca" jbct1aos@... ct1aos
        > Date: Wed Aug 1, 2007 2:47 am ((PDT))
        >
        >Or are you _trying_ to look stupid? ;-)

        No, I'm trying to use the Internet economically and
        in this case read the Daily Digest which is regularly
        filled with the vomit of past messages by careless
        posters.

        I don't need them: I have a mailbox full of them,
        often several times over.

        You don't need them: if you don't keep old mail,
        there is a group Archive. If you can't access the
        archive on the Web, perhaps you _should_ keep
        your old messages.

        They are a waste of time, of money and of
        archive space - which may eventually run out.

        So many of them are irrelevant, they make
        searching the archive less effective.

        And most of all, they make reading the Digest
        a PITA because there is so much trash to scroll
        through and spotting the next message is made
        unnecessarily difficult.

        Oh, and Yahoo asks you not to do it:
        >From Yahoo! Groups Help: ... trim all the irrelevant quoted text
        >out of your message (as a courtesy to the other members of
        >the group to make the digest easier to read).

        >So far you have advertised that people is using too much bandwidth
        >but now you started to call names...

        Lady Bracknell: To lose one parent, Mr. Worthing,
        may be regarded as a misfortune;
        to lose both looks like carelessness.

        Stupid is as stupid does.
        Did Forrest Gump say that? He should have.

        >this is what is incredible. You want to educate
        >your way a whole reflector.

        No, I want to use a resource the way it was designed
        to be used without thoughtless people crapping on me.

        I would like the dog-walkers here to scoop up after,
        to leave the park a pretty place for others to enjoy.

        >Many times its much faster just to hit REPLY,
        >if you know what it means,

        Yes, it is called top-posting and note that I didn't
        complain directly about this - I'm not totally opposed
        to top-posting - but of the lack of _trimming_ which
        usually follows, as if the poster's attention span
        doesn't extend to the right of his cursor.

        Perhaps top-posting damages the brain - it certainly
        hurts mine, as I often-times tyr to understand what
        was so blindingly obvious to the poster in the heat of
        the moment that he didn't care to give any clue to the
        interpretation of his cryptogram by people who are
        somewhere else thinking about something completely
        different when they read it.

        Just because Bill Gates has made it easy, that doesn't
        mean it should be everyone's way of life.

        You should view the positioning of the editing cursor at
        the top of the message as an invitation to move through
        the post deleting irrelevancy and inserting your reply
        interleaved in context or, it you reach it first, at the
        bottom of the quote and usually the quote should be brief.

        [Sometimes - and especially if a long initial quote is
        needed - it may be appropriate to begin with your
        own comment to establish the nature of your reply.]

        On a discussion list, if you top-post why quote at all?

        It doesn't provide an introductory context to your post
        so it is of little help in getting the reader's thought
        processes in tune with whatever yours were when
        you read it and composed your reply.

        So, if you top-post your response should be capable
        of standing on its own, especially if the quote has
        already been munged by a succession of bad quoting
        habits so that it is near-impossible to recognize to
        which point, if any, your response might be a reply.

        It is simply a case of whether you have sufficient regard
        for the wisdom of your own words to present them in a
        way that your readers can readily comprehend them,
        and respect for their investment of time in reading them.

        >Many times its much faster just to hit REPLY,
        >if you know what it means,

        And don't care what it _does_

        Many times it is faster not to stop at stop signs and
        red traffic lights but it is still sociopathic behaviour.

        I suppose you also expect pets and children to
        learn the wisdom and practicality of toilet-training
        spontaneously - and meanwhile hope that the little
        piles on the carpet will go away of their own accord.

        >and
        >besides in your last post you did the same thing.

        What "same thing"?

        * I _didn't_ top-post
        > A: Because it destroys the flow of the conversation
        >Q: Why is top-posting bad?

        * I _did_ trim the quote
        (That's what "[snip]" means, BTW, and perhaps
        you didn't notice that I _counted_ the 180 lines
        of irrelevant quote, not quoted them.

        * My signature file had a correct dash-dash-space
        delimiter and only five lines of text - with a lesson
        worth learning, good advice then and worthy of
        consideration now. And I select the signature
        according to the circumstances, so if people
        trim I won't remind them at length of rfc1855.

        So, what "same thing"?

        >Think about not to be annoyed and do not annoy us.
        >
        >Just enjoy.

        Yeah, right: "But apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln,
        how did you enjoy the play?"

        I could be doing more useful things, if there wasn't
        the need to counter people like you who encourage
        hit-and-run driving.


        Regards, LenW
        --
        Content of a follow-up post should exceed quoted content. (rfc1855)
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.