Newsgroup Etiquette

Peter Bell wrote:


> However, the RFC system has a well proven history of updates by revision
> and superseding documents when changes are required - is RFC1855
> superseded?
>

Has it been recently reviewed. Like on many roadways, if everybody is
speeding, and there was not some engineering study reviewing the speed
limit, the posted speed limit becomes unenforcable.

Current trends, set standards.

Jules wrote:
> I note you used the word "often". Well you're honest.

It was a global qualifier, not a personal one.

E.P.

Jules wrote:
> Peter Bell wrote:
>
>
> > However, the RFC system has a well proven history of updates by
revision
> > and superseding documents when changes are required - is RFC1855
> > superseded?
> >
>
> Has it been recently reviewed. Like on many roadways, if everybody is

> speeding, and there was not some engineering study reviewing the
speed
> limit, the posted speed limit becomes unenforcable.
>
> Current trends, set standards.

You're talking apples and oranges. Traffic engineering is a science.
Personal interaction is about as far from science as human endeavors
get. While you may wish to impose some newfangled etiquette on all
others, it won't work, because people are generally comfortable with
the old etiquette.

In addition, since top-posting is done purposefully only by a few in
comparison to those who don't know any better, it will always be in the
small minority.

E.P.

On 10 Apr 2005 10:31:25 -0700, wrote:

>
>Andy Turner wrote:
>> On 9 Apr 2005 08:57:18 -0700, wrote:
>> There are probably thousands. But you get the point.
>>
>> The only point I see is that you just *cannot* bring yourself to
>> appreciate that top-posting is a preferred and welcomed style by
>> thousands upon thousands of people.
>
>I see it just fine. They are in a small minority

As are many preferences. Does this make them wrong? What about
vegetarianism, scientology, people who cycle to work, ethnic
minorities even - are they all wrong because they are minorities? Are
they being rude to us? Should we stamp them all out?


> and are generally repudiated.

Only by those who are blinkered, self-centred and can only handle one
style of writing (I mean, really - how hard is it?!) . Blimey, I'd
hate to think you conduct yourself with this kind of bigoted outlook
in real life.



>> Your analogies are always wrong
>> because they are with practices which are either dangerous or
>> entirely unaccepted.
>
>Heh. Driving the speed limit in the passing lane is not inherently
>dangerous, and is not illegal everywhere. Posting in caps or html
>might run afoul of some newsgroup charters, but in alt.* groups, most
>anything goes. That does not imply that those behaviors are not rude.
>
>It's merely a matter of degree.

And as I've said over and over now, once you change the degree, you
corrupt the comparison. Not only that, but in your analogy you've
switched to a situation where third parties never welcome and prefer
that behaviour, whereas in top-posting - they do.


Why is it, do you think, that you have to make analogies in order for
your complaints to appear to make some sense? If yours were a valid
complaint within the subject, then it would make sense there - without
the need for incorrect and bogus analogies.



>> Y'see those are not driving styles that are perfectly
>> accepted and welcomed by loads of other people.
>
>LOL. You have just abdicated the argument. Those behaviors are on
>display every day, by hundreds of people. And that's just in this
>area. In big cities, you'll see multiples of the same rude driving
>behavior.

Yes, but the point that is *painfully* eluding you is that third
parties do not welcome this behaviour. It's been the problem with most
of your analogies. If you want your analogy to make sense, then you'll
have to find an example of behaviour which you would call rude yet is
cheerfully accepted and preferred by some third parties (not the
person exhibiting that behaviour). WRT a driving analogy, you'd have
to find an example where in many cases, the person behind (ie, the
third party), has no problem at all with the behaviour that you find
to be rude and actually prefers the guy in front to be doing it.


>> However top-posting
>> *is* perfectly accepted and welcomed by thousands of people.
>
>People still claim the world is flat, that the moon landings were
>faked, and that the Earth is 6000 years old.

Yeah, maybe some people have a habit of holding onto some beliefs when
other people have moved on...


>Doesn't make them any less wrong for holding sincerely onto their false
>beliefs.

LOL! Y'see, this is where your blinkers truly reveal themselves. This
isn't any kind of "false belief" - it's only a differing preference!
WRT posting styles, there is no wrong and right, only preferences!



>> If you want to compare top-posting to something else, then you have
>to
>> compare it to something which is also preferred by a great many
>people
>> - such as motorbikes versus cars.
>
>Riding a motorbike (the mere act of riding) has never been considered
>rude behavior.

*Exactly*. We all accept other people's choices WRT cars and bikes
even if it's not the choice we would make. Now then, why can't you
accept other people's choices elsewhere?


> Your analogy fails miserably. Grasp another straw.

Actually it served me *beautifully* and I'm hoping it helped you to
see the light. I'm hoping it helped you to see that people make
choices and have preferences all over the place and just because
someone makes a different choice to you, doesn't make them rude (as
you clearly appreciate WRT cars vs motorbikes).



>> Again, wrong. You do not support courtesy because you expect other
>> people to adopt your preferences. It's selfish and it's ignorant.
>
>If they were merely *my* preferences, you'd have a point. But they
>were standards of behavior set long before your or I ever wrote our
>first usenet posts.

"long before", indeed. And things have changed since then, that's all.
Get with the programme. There are a great deal of reasons why the
modern and more recent contributor to usenet would prefer top-posting.
However, you ignore all this and expect things to still behave as they
did in 1985.



>> >> Since you (presumably) drive an Audi, do you expect that everyone
>> >> drives one since that is your preference?
>> >
>> >Have I ever said that?
>>
>> No, it was a question <doh>.
>
>An attempt at a strawman construction.

Hmm... you don't seem to understand strawmen. I was *asking* you a
question, not supposing your opinion or answer. This clearly was not
an attempt at any strawman.


> As are the rest of the "questions."

Ah, you again avoid answering the question a second time. Funny
that... It's clear that you're avoiding acknowledging that you do not
expect everyone else to adopt your preference of car and perhaps
you've seen the contradiction that puts you in WRT your expectations
on usenet.


> Again, these standards exist separate of me. The
> majority holds them as correct.

Which of course doesn't mean that the minority are wrong - it's just a
different preference.

Think about this. You will no doubt be in one minority group of some
sort. Have a think about what that is - and how you would feel if that
group was outlawed simply because it was a minority preference and
that the majority decided they didn't like it and it was rude.

It'd be ridiculous wouldn't it...



>> However, I think you're perhaps getting the point. To make such
>> requests based on your own preferences would be ridiculous.
>
>If proper posting were merely my own preference, you'd be entirely
>correct. But it is not. It is the preference of the majority

Of course it is, but once again, that doesn't make the minority
preference wrong, nor give you any right to try and stamp it out.

That'd be ridiculous wouldn't it...



> and existed previous to MS Outlook and other wrongly-top-post-default
> programs.

I think most usenet clients leave the cursor at the top of the post
when replying. Agent (the third most popular reader in this group),
certainly does.



>> I'm glad
>> to see that in at least some walks of life, you're happy to accept
>the
>> choices other people make and don't expect them to make the same
>> choices as you.
>
>In matters of ettiquette, I *do* expect people to make the same
>choices.

If you found yourself in a group where top-posting was the majority,
would you make that same choice then?


> That's how a community gets along.

A community gets along by not whining to each other about totally
trivial matters such as the way they lay out their posts. A community
gets along when people respect each others choices and preferences.

This Audi community was getting along quite nicely before the top-post
whining started...



> I don't clog the passing
>lane, and I expect my fellow drivers to do the same. I use center turn
>lanes, don't swing wide to turn right, don't left turn into the far
>right lane, and all sorts of other driving behavior that helps everyone
>(including me) get where they are going with the least amount of
>hassle.

That's great, but as detailed above, your analogy is totally
irrelevant because there isn't a group of drivers that would actually
prefer you to adopt the bad driving behaviour.



>> >It speaks volumes that you are running around a.a.a
>>
>> Running around?! LOL!
>
>A figure of speech. Finding all of my posts and humping them to pound
>your chest.

Finding all of your posts? I've responded to *various* people here,
it's just that you have the most obtuse attitude towards accepting
other people's choices (and indeed, other people's opinion, as you
explicitly admitted).


In any case, is it a problem for you that I'm replying to your posts?
Would you like me to go away and stop pointing out the holes in your
analogies and the self-centred and blinkered attitude you are
displaying? I'll bet you would...




>> > humping my posts trying to goad me into a flamewar.
>>
>> This is not about a flamewar (have I flamed you *at all*?)
>
>Sure, if name-calling or other ad hominem commentary can be called
>flaming.

Right.. so where have I called you any names then? Please quote or
provide reference.



>> this is
>> merely trying to help you adjust your self-centered attitude with
>> regard to expecting everyone else to adopt your preferences.
>
>Again, they are not merely *my* preferences.

They're the preferences of the majority of course. Which doesn't mean
that the minority is wrong... *remember that* if nothing else.


>> I would suggest the same WRT your top-post whining. If you hadn't
>> decided to start moaning about it, I wouldn't be responding now would
>> I..
>
>So, you can't control your own posting. Sad.

Of course I can my friend.. but if you weren't top-post-whining in the
first place, I wouldn't have a decision to make now would I...



andyt

On 10 Apr 2005 11:01:53 -0700, wrote:

>
>Andy Turner wrote:
>> On 9 Apr 2005 20:50:17 -0700, wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Mike Buckley wrote:
>> >> Why not just be an individualist and follow your own inclination,
>> >rather
>> >> than what the net police tell you??
>> >>
>> >
>> >Yeah - when your cell rings in a movie theater, go ahead and answer,
>> >then have a long, loud conversation. After all, whatever *you* want
>is
>> >the most important thing.
>>
>> As Jules points out, these are not comparable situations.
>
>Jules is wrong, and so are you. The situations are only a matter of
>degree.

Sure, but by changing the degree, you totally invalidate the
comparison. What I'm saying to you is that top-posting is accepted,
enjoyed and preferred by many people. And you try to compare this with
something that isn't. It's not a valid comparison *because* you have
changed the degree.


Ask yourself this. If top-posting was so bad, made such little sense
and bottom-posting was the obvious way, then why do so many people
top-post? You'd think they'd all be confused and want to change...no?



>There are plenty of rude cell phone behaviors, this one is just one
>most folks can agree on. But it's merely a preference, and the small
>minority prefers it, so by your logic, it's acceptable.

The *huge* difference is that rude mobile behaviour is only ever
acceptable to the perpetrator and is not something which is welcomed
by others around them. Top-posting on the other hand is not a problem
for *loads* of people. Your comparison is again invalid.


This is the bit you must ask yourself. If it's *so* bad, why do so
many people prefer it and have perfectly good conversations using it?

*Why* is that?


>> Remember
>> that top-posting is perfectly acceptable to and is the preferred
>style
>> for a great many people.
>
>Those who don't know any better, those who are purposefully rude

Why would people do this? Do you think that they're being rude on
purpose - to annoy you or something?

Is it *just* *not* *possible* that they actually prefer the style and
find it easier to use? Can you not appreciate that at all?


Try to appreciate that usenet is just a shared resource where people
post messages that other people see. No-one has to pander to your
preferences any more than you have to pander to theirs. If you have
trouble interpreting their posts then by all means ignore or killfile
them if you want to, but they have no obligation to change their
preference just to pander to those who can only understand one style
of post.


> or those who read everything from the last page to the first
> page - yup, that's true.

Hmm.. you're still showing that you don't understand that it's the
*quotes* that are presented in stack order - not the new text. With a
lack of understanding like this, I'm not so sure as your opinions on
it can really be taken seriously.



>> That's what makes it a preference.
>
>See the cell phone references above. Dream up some driving ones. Like
>this:
>
>You're left turning out of a business onto a five-lane street. (Two
>lanes in either direction and a turn lane.) The car in front of you is
>also turning left. You wait and wait and wait - the turn lane is
>clear, the traffic from the right is clear, and the other guy isn't
>going. Yup, that's right, when he finally goes, it's because traffic
>is clear in both directions. He's held you up because of his
>preference. You, of course, celebrate his preference, right?

I'm not sure of the specifics of your analogy because I'm in the UK
and I dunno what a turn lane is (and presumably the left/right is the
other way around). However, I notice that you present yet another
analogy - if your complaints WRT top-posting are valid, why do you
have to resort to so many analogies just to make your point? Are you
perhaps acknowledging that your complaints don't sound so valid when
presented within the actual topic...



>> >Or, like most of the rest of us learned before first grade, we could
>> >imagine that the world does not revolve around me, me, me.
>>
>> Indeed it doesn't and therefore you can't expect everyone to adopt
>> *your* preferences.
>
>Oh, but if it were just *my* preference, I wouldn't be having this
>conversation with you. But it isn't. The netiquette has existed for
>quite some time before either one of us entered usenet. As I said
>before, if you can find anywhere even remotely official-looking that
>supports top-posting as a preferred method, go ahead and link it.
>History *and* popular opinion stand against you.

Interesting word you use - "History". Also interesting that you
appreciate that this netiquette has been around "for quite some time".
What you have to appreciate here is that times have changed. The
internet technologies and the demographics and behaviour of users has
changed dramatically in this time. Hence so have people's preferences.
Essentially, you're just behind the times and whining about standards
that seemed important in 1990. Do you still like your web pages to be
static HTML and animated GIFs? Because that's the era you're harking
back to. The RFC's probably contain various things that seem
ludicrously out of date these days.

Learn some new tricks. There's more than one way to make a usenet
post, and neither preference is wrong or invalid. Just another
preference.

Someone laying out a post in a stack style really shouldn't be enough
to confuse you, it really shouldn't...


andyt

On 10 Apr 2005 10:35:53 -0700, wrote:

>
>Andy Turner wrote:
>> On 8 Apr 2005 13:01:37 -0700, wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Ronny wrote:
>> >> "charles blassberg" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > Can we pls keep on topic within a thread?
>> >>
>> >> This is usenet, offtopic is part of the fun time, get used to it.
>> >
>> >And what's even more humorous is that the meta-discussion couldn't
>just
>> >reside in the original thread - no, perish the thought - it had to
>> >spawn TWO new threads, including this one! On-topic, LOL.
>> >
>> >Let's all start posting in all-caps, HTML, with attached binaries.
>> >After all, any preference is valid, right?
>>
>> If a preference works for a great many people (as top-posting does),
>> then it must be valid.
>
>Then driving the speed limit in the passing lane is valid.

Is this a situation where you'd like them to move out of the way so as
you can drive above the speed limit? If so, then I don't see the
problem and it's amusing to see which behaviour you think is wrong.


> As is almost universal cell phone use in public.

This happens all the time in the UK, there are only a few places where
it is frowned upon. In those scenarios it is universally frowned upon
and no-one does it. Hence it doesn't compare to top-posting, which is
welcomed by a great many people.


>> I don't see thousands of people posting in
>> all-caps. Your analogy therefore is not valid.
>
>It's a preference, isn't it? Just a matter of degree.

And by changing that degree, you make it incomparable. Thousands upon
thousands of people enjoy top-posting and prefer it. Who exactly are
*you* to say that they are wrong?

Let's say you happen across a thread where 4 or 5 people have had a
conversation entirely by top-posting. The thread has ended, no-one got
confused and people said what they wanted to say. Now then, what would
be your problem with that? What exactly would these people have done
wrong in your eyes? And, perhaps crucially, what relevance would your
opinion on their thread have to them? Why would they care what you
thought about their thread?


>> Do you think all usenet posts should be in English, since that is
>> your preferred language?
>
>In groups that are customarily English, yes.

That's good. What about in other language groups?


> But I do see your strawman attempt.

Oh dear. This is no strawman (especially since I *asked* for your
opinion instead of supposing it), just helping you to see your
prejudices.

Of course, if you want to explain why that was a strawman, go right
ahead.



andyt

On 10 Apr 2005 21:01:37 -0700, wrote:

>
>Jules wrote:
>> You're not married are you?
>
>Sadly, we proper-posters are often happily married, with children.

Why sadly?


>Women seem curiously drawn to a man with etiquette. Makes the "bad
>boy" thing tough to carry off, and thus ruins one's prospects for
>playing the field for decades or causes one to live a lonely, boring
>life defending poor behavior in usenet.

Er... didn't you start this by whining in the first place.... hmm...


>Get a life, Jules.

LOL! This from a fella who gets upset about the way people lay their
posts out....



andyt

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 09:57:47 +0100, Peter Bell >
wrote:

>In message >
> Andy Turner > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 18:38:08 +0100, Peter Bell >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In message >
>> > Andy Turner > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 14:40:13 +0200, Arne > wrote:
>> >> >Little guideness (also in my sig):
>> >> >http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post
>> >>
>> >> These are only someone's opinions put down in HTML. Bear this in mind.
>> >
>> >Really? Is that why it quotes guidelines from Microsoft and from
>> >RFC1855?
>>
>> (a) What jursdiction do Microsoft have here? None.
>
>No, I quite agree. I was replying to your assertion that the guidelines
>given on the web page were one person's opinions. I clearly proved that
>this is untrue!

OK, so perhaps it's a few people's opinions collated! The point still
remains! I'd expect the page to be written by a single person anyway -
even if he quotes sources that have the same opinion (which of course,
he *would* do wouldn't he!).


>> (b) IIRC RFC1855 makes a pasing reference to posting styles and merely
>> makes a little suggestion rather than try and enforce any rules.
>> (c) And of course RFC1855 was written decades ago and merely
>> represents the opinions of those around at the time.
>
>However, the RFC system has a well proven history of updates by revision
>and superseding documents when changes are required - is RFC1855
>superseded?

The section that I thinking of hasn't changed in a long time AFAIK. I
honestly don't think anyone would bother to revise it, regardless of
the changes in usage we have seen over the years.



andyt

On 10 Apr 2005 19:14:20 -0700, wrote:

>
>Dave LaCourse wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 14:40:13 +0200, Arne > wrote:
>>
>> >Little guideness (also in my sig):
>>
>> And I noticed you posted properly. Thanks. Wasn't hard, was it?
>
>
>Actually, Arne agrees with us.

Hmm.. how rather ironic that someone got confused about who-said-what
in an interleaved posted thread....


> It's Jules and Andy that seem to have comprehension problems.

We have no comprehension problems whatsoever since we can both deal
with more than one style of post without it baffling us. You on the
other hand have so much difficulty comprehending it that you whine
about it and try to stop people doing it.

Top-posting. It's not rocket science.



andyt

Once upon a time *Andy Turner* wrote:

> On 10 Apr 2005 10:31:25 -0700, wrote:
>
>>Riding a motorbike (the mere act of riding) has never been considered
>>rude behavior.
>
> *Exactly*. We all accept other people's choices WRT cars and bikes
> even if it's not the choice we would make. Now then, why can't you
> accept other people's choices elsewhere?
>

If you prefer to ride a bike or even walk does'nt disturb me, as long
as you keep your self walking on the side walk or bike on the right
side of the road (especially if me meet eatch other).

But I would not accept if you lived next door to me and choose to have
great partys every night, with loud music and drunk yelling guests.

So accepting other peoples choices when it not disturb others is no
problem. The problem comes when they try to turn everything upside down!

If you like to do a test, start a thread with somebody who
bottom post every other time when you top post between, without
cutting anything. Make 10 posts eatch and look at how stupid it looks,
with all your posts at the first half of the last post.

Maybe you can see the "thread" in it, and you may even do so posting
mails p2p if you like, but news is not for those only who start a new
thread!

--
/Arne

Top posters will be ignored. Quote the part you
are replying to, no more and no less! And don't
quote signatures, thank you.