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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Watercooling newsgroup ?
David Maynard wrote:
Ben Pope wrote: Of course, but your description is a version of 'bottom posting' and in line with the "good posting methodology" that the previous 'top poster' labeled as "stupid rules made by people with big egos." But providing you trim, all of his argument is lost. The bit about big egos is also incorrect, since it's not about egos, it's about standards. If he were to drive on the wrong side of the road, his argument could hardly be "I think you have a big ego, how dare you dictate on which side of the road I drive." RFC 1855 gives the guidelines in paragraph 3.1.1 http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html Since it's an RFC, a large number of people have agreed to the way in which it's done. Personally I couldn't care less where the information is, as long as it's clear what's being said. However, quite often you see a one-liner crammed up against the header information from the previous post, with maybe 5 to 6 other posts inconsistently quoted, 95% of which is completely irrelevent. And thats considered "efficient" by the deficient author. Ben -- I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a string... |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Watercooling newsgroup ?
Ben Pope wrote:
David Maynard wrote: Ben Pope wrote: Of course, but your description is a version of 'bottom posting' and in line with the "good posting methodology" that the previous 'top poster' labeled as "stupid rules made by people with big egos." But providing you trim, all of his argument is lost. You and I have no disagreement. Your point about the argument being lost is precisely why I was trying to induce the previous poster to read the various articles on the subject. They don't just simply say 'do it this way'; they provide the reasoning, based on the most sensible, for why it's the 'accepted' methodology by those who think about it. The bit about big egos is also incorrect, since it's not about egos, it's about standards. If he were to drive on the wrong side of the road, his argument could hardly be "I think you have a big ego, how dare you dictate on which side of the road I drive." An argument could be made that which side of the road one drives on poses a physical danger to others whereas posting style "doesn't hurt anyone." That, of course, is why one is law while the other is a matter of convention and courtesy. RFC 1855 gives the guidelines in paragraph 3.1.1 http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html Since it's an RFC, a large number of people have agreed to the way in which it's done. Personally I couldn't care less where the information is, as long as it's clear what's being said. I agree. That, after all, is the purpose of writing a message, I should think snip Ben |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Watercooling newsgroup ?
Bite Me wrote:
In article , David Maynard wrote: BillW wrote: The "good posting methodology" are stupid rules made by people with big egos that think everyone should do as them. Bottom posting makes no sense as it makes everyone spend half their time searching for new data or reading data they have already read. I always have top posted and always will as that is the most efficient way........ And I'd bet you've never read word one about the subject. Question: If proper 'net etiquette' is important, why didn't you trim the rest of the stuff? Because I felt it was relevant for background on what was being discussed; which, if you had paid attention, was top vs bottom posting and not snipping techniques. Stuff that SHOULD have been deleted follows: In your opinion. "David Maynard" wrote in message ... Phil Weldon wrote: Thanks for the nice list of URL's on usenet posting, but top-posting still seems more in tune with the development of internet use and capability. Phil Weldon, pweldon.mindspring.com Well, it's 'in tune' with 'developments' in that it coincides with the rapid influx of people who are unfamiliar with good posting methodology, as was noted in one of the articles. But I was replying to Koop's comment "netiquette dictates that either top or bottom posting is O.K. as long as it remains consistent" and that is not the case. Nope. Had to scroll to the bottom and no further (or pertinent) info. It's 'pertinence', besides topical, is it shows how top posting gets things stuck down here at the end of a message and your 'having' to read 'all the way down' demonstrates that the top poster's argument of how top posting prevents this very thing is incorrect. I sure hope it didn't hurt your scroll finger, or strain your brain cells, to read the 'whole thing'. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
watercooling vs. air cooling | g. bon | Overclocking AMD Processors | 2 | March 4th 06 11:36 PM |
watercooling parts in Canada | té_qui | General | 1 | May 28th 05 03:39 AM |
watercooling??? should i? | Lee | Overclocking AMD Processors | 6 | January 12th 05 05:11 PM |
Watercooling, peltiers etc,.. | Moods | Overclocking AMD Processors | 5 | February 3rd 04 08:41 AM |
Watercooling enwsgroup ? | aep@nospam writeme.com | Nvidia Videocards | 0 | July 19th 03 02:14 PM |