Newsgroup Etiquette

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?

--
Peter Bell (Note Spamtrap - To reply, replace 'invalid' with 'bellfamily')

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.

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.

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


> 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?

> >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.

E.P.

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?

Dave

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

E.P.

Then get a life.

wrote:

> Post correctly? Of course not. After all, whatever *you* want is the
> only important thing.
>
> E.P.
>

You're not married are you?

Jules wrote:
> You're not married are you?

Sadly, we proper-posters are often happily married, with children.
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.

Get a life, Jules.

E.P.

Jules wrote:
> Then get a life.

Classic usenet irony.

E.P.

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.
(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.


andyt

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!

> (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?

--
Peter Bell (Note Spamtrap - To reply, replace 'invalid' with 'bellfamily')