"Blair P. Houghton" > writes:

> No, I'm bothered by the fact that it doesn't actually post messages
> when it posts them, causing me to re-post them and look like a moron.

I'm afraid that if you're looking for instant propagation, Usenet's
the wrong medium; it isn't just Google Groups as a Usenet provider.

You're still omitting the context for your replies, I notice.

/Lew
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

The problem wasn't instant propagation. It's loading in a timely
manner. Something delayed the original message's appearance in
Google's own database for a considerable time, making it look like
nothing had posted, and a check of the group confirmed that. But when
I reposted, both appeared.

The thing that will probably cause me the most reason to stop using
Google Groups, though, is that it has a posting limit. And doesn't say
what the limit is.

As for context, I recommend a threaded newsreader. I wouldn't post
anywhere without one.

--Blair

Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> As for context, I recommend a threaded newsreader. I wouldn't post
> anywhere without one.

I've found it good etiquette to quote messages for context. You really
don't know what varied ways folks might be accessing your message on Usenet.

Steve

Blair P. 1/4/06


> The problem wasn't instant propagation. It's loading in a timely
> manner. Something delayed the original message's appearance in
> Google's own database for a considerable time, making it look like
> nothing had posted, and a check of the group confirmed that. But when
> I reposted, both appeared.
>
> The thing that will probably cause me the most reason to stop using
> Google Groups, though, is that it has a posting limit. And doesn't say
> what the limit is.
>
> As for context, I recommend a threaded newsreader. I wouldn't post
> anywhere without one.
>
> --Blair

Blair, with all due respect, and speaking of context, you left contextual
text out of your post above. I wonder if I could ask you to include a
contextualizing snippet of the old post when you respond. Thanks.
Michael

>I wonder if I could ask you to include a contextualizing snippet of the old post

I'd prefer not to have to do so in every case.

Track back on the thread (you do have a threaded
newsreader, don't you? I mean, *gosh*, it's 2006 already) and you'll
see plainly what I'm responding to. Though if it were relevant, I'd
include it.

--Blair

Blair P. 1/6/06


>> I wonder if I could ask you to include a contextualizing snippet of the old
>> post
>
> I'd prefer not to have to do so in every case.

It would not be necessary in "every case," but it would be appreciated in
those cases where it is.
>
> Track back on the thread (you do have a threaded
> newsreader, don't you? I mean, *gosh*, it's 2006 already) and you'll
> see plainly what I'm responding to. Though if it were relevant, I'd
> include it.

I do have a threaded newsreader. It is unfair to expect your reader to sift
back through a thread's history to find your referent. At this point, I
agree to disagree with you.

Michael

Threaded views are an eyesore. It is normally used for genesis and
scope of more than one post. It isn't used to verify that someone
simply is or isn't talking to themself.

Jim

Michael Plant wrote:
> Blair P. 1/6/06
>
>
> >> I wonder if I could ask you to include a contextualizing snippet of the old
> >> post
> >
> > I'd prefer not to have to do so in every case.
>
> It would not be necessary in "every case," but it would be appreciated in
> those cases where it is.
> >
> > Track back on the thread (you do have a threaded
> > newsreader, don't you? I mean, *gosh*, it's 2006 already) and you'll
> > see plainly what I'm responding to. Though if it were relevant, I'd
> > include it.
>
> I do have a threaded newsreader. It is unfair to expect your reader to sift
> back through a thread's history to find your referent. At this point, I
> agree to disagree with you.
>
> Michael

"Blair P. Houghton" > writes:

> >I wonder if I could ask you to include a contextualizing snippet of
> >the old post
>
> I'd prefer not to have to do so in every case.
>
> Track back on the thread (you do have a threaded newsreader, don't
> you? I mean, *gosh*, it's 2006 already) and you'll see plainly what
> I'm responding to.

Let's think of it in terms of economics. There's only one of you, and
on the other side we have the (possibly dwindling) multitude of your
readers. You could do the work yourself, or *each* of your readers
could do it. Which way is more efficient?

>Though if it were relevant, I'd include it.

You appear to be a recent convert to Contextualism, brother, but we
welcome all reformed sinners.

/Lew
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

>Let's think of it in terms of economics. There's only one of you, and
on the other side we have the (possibly dwindling) multitude...

That's not economics, it's politics, which indicates that you
either don't understand what you're saying or are dissembling
for a purpose.

>From an economic standpoint, I will quote as little as I desire,
and you will understand as little as you desire. We'll see who
loses the most.

--Blair

"Blair P. Houghton" > writes:

> >Let's think of it in terms of economics. There's only one of you, and
> >on the other side we have the (possibly dwindling) multitude...
>
> That's not economics, it's politics, which indicates that you
> either don't understand what you're saying or are dissembling
> for a purpose.

I was about to reply that my argument was economic because it (the
part you snipped) was about efficiency:

You could do the work yourself, or *each* of your readers could do
it. Which way is more efficient?

But, come to think of it, there *is* a political assumption in there.
I was assuming that the "normal" point of view, the one governing what
is to be optimized in an economic sense, was that of the whole
community following the thread. But of course, in the abstract,
there's nothing to recommend the community's interest as superior to
your own.

> >From an economic standpoint, I will quote as little as I desire,
> and you will understand as little as you desire. We'll see who
> loses the most.

Well, I think we understand each other now.

/Lew
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

I think the Google assurance of seeing one's post rolled up
'momentarily' is more true than not. I've never lost a post with
Google. There is nothing in the Google psyche that depends on a double
post besides serendipity. If you don't believe me look at the current
share price. Google has a threaded view. You only need it when people
don't quote. If there is a posting limit it is because people try to
post video or audio files in non Usenet format with appropriate
reassembly instructions. The standard formats for Usenet audio video
posts are automatically deleted by Google no matter where they come
from. It is a function of blanket censorship more than storage space.
To this extent I think Google is abusing Usenet and should cease the
practice or cease archiving. Most people complain about software
because it makes them look stupid than coding bugs.

Jim

Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> The problem wasn't instant propagation. It's loading in a timely
> manner. Something delayed the original message's appearance in
> Google's own database for a considerable time, making it look like
> nothing had posted, and a check of the group confirmed that. But when
> I reposted, both appeared.
>
> The thing that will probably cause me the most reason to stop using
> Google Groups, though, is that it has a posting limit. And doesn't say
> what the limit is.
>
> As for context, I recommend a threaded newsreader. I wouldn't post
> anywhere without one.
>
> --Blair

I actually saw one lost last week; there was an error message,
and I clicked the back button, and the edit was gone.

I've since discovered that if I'd clicked the "Reply" widget it
would have reopened the edit box, and my text would probably
still be in there (Firefox is stickier than IE for edit-box contents,
so YMMV).

Given that Google's not a high-reliability system (reliability may
be a forethought to some google coders, but I'm not expecting
them to have done a FMEA on it nor to be standardized as to
their diligence) I'll just have to take care to preserve content
myself.

--Blair
"ctrl-A ctrl-C tab tab tab enter"

The only error I've ever seen to the Post Message button is Server Not
Available. Sending the information in the Text Message box back to
Google is a function of your Web Browser and ISP. That is the Modus
Operandi of the Client Server model of the Internet. The only
consistent glitch I can replicate in Google is keep the edit window
open a long time before the Post Message. Occasionally it return you
to the edit window again with the same information like you didn't do a
Post Message. This is because in the meantime other Usenet posts have
been rolled up in the same thread so your position has changed. You
hit the Post Message one more time to get the 'wait momentarily'
message while you are properly positioned in the thread. I don't even
worry about any backup strategy to my posts anymore. I cut my teeth on
Google when 24 hour postings were the standard and not momentarily. I
also log in and out for each post because the Internet is a stateless
system that is there is no guarantee you will be recognized as a Client
the next time you use the Post method expected by the Server. There
are ways around this conundrum but no standards. BTW the non standard
communications are also used by viruses.

Jim

Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> I actually saw one lost last week; there was an error message,
> and I clicked the back button, and the edit was gone.
>
> I've since discovered that if I'd clicked the "Reply" widget it
> would have reopened the edit box, and my text would probably
> still be in there (Firefox is stickier than IE for edit-box contents,
> so YMMV).
>
> Given that Google's not a high-reliability system (reliability may
> be a forethought to some google coders, but I'm not expecting
> them to have done a FMEA on it nor to be standardized as to
> their diligence) I'll just have to take care to preserve content
> myself.
>
> --Blair
> "ctrl-A ctrl-C tab tab tab enter"

Space Cowboy wrote:
> I also log in and out for each post because the Internet is a stateless
> system that is there is no guarantee you will be recognized as a Client
> the next time you use the Post method expected by the Server. There
> are ways around this conundrum but no standards. BTW the non standard
> communications are also used by viruses.
>
> Jim
>

I don’t think there is any need to login and logout for each post, HTTP
protocol is stateless (Internet is too broad a term) but the most common
way to track state is thru cookies, so I am pretty sure they know who
you are, and the fact that your login is 10 or 20 min old should not
make any difference, however Google can use some timeout, so if you were
inactive for some time they can log you out. But I don’t use browser to
post messages to this group and could not be sure if Google have timeout
and of the amount of time before timeout.

Oleg

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

irae wrote:
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Top-posting is not the same as saying things backwards. In fact, most
people skip the quoted text entirely and read the most recent text,
regardless of lexical order, then refer backwards, so top-posting is
the more efficient order for introductory postscripts or loosely
connected replies.

And if you consider top-posting annoying, much less the most annoying
thing on usenet or email, you're really not getting enough spam.

--Blair

"Blair P. Houghton" > writes:

> [...]
> As for context, I recommend a threaded newsreader.

I have one too.

> I wouldn't post anywhere without one.

Sorry, that doesn't get you off the hook. When you reply to a long
post that makes a number of points, it's only fair to your readers to
make it clear which points you're responding to. To achieve that, I
recommend replying inline to text you quote.

/Lew
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

Lewis 1/5/06

> "Blair P. Houghton" > writes:
>
>> [...]
>> As for context, I recommend a threaded newsreader.
>
> I have one too.
>
>> I wouldn't post anywhere without one.
>
> Sorry, that doesn't get you off the hook. When you reply to a long
> post that makes a number of points, it's only fair to your readers to
> make it clear which points you're responding to. To achieve that, I
> recommend replying inline to text you quote.

Lew, that's a good idea. It works especially well for me since the two
programs I use color code the generations of text and also indicate the
generations with lines or other marks. I understand though that some
programs don't separate the generations, so it would be a problem for them.
Adding the name of the poster to the top of each paragraph, which I learned
from other posters here, solves that problem. In any event, those of us who
feel more comfortable in a contextualized world appreciate it.

Michael

In article >,
Michael Plant > wrote:

> Lew, that's a good idea. It works especially well for me since the two
> programs I use color code the generations of text and also indicate the
> generations with lines or other marks. I understand though that some
> programs don't separate the generations, so it would be a problem for them.
> Adding the name of the poster to the top of each paragraph, which I learned
> from other posters here, solves that problem. In any event, those of us who
> feel more comfortable in a contextualized world appreciate it.

Another feature on most newsreaders that many people don't
know about is the quote highlight thing. You just drag your mouse
over just the part of the post you wish to appear in your reply,
and select it, so that it becomes highlighted. THEN you hit the
'reply' button, and when your page comes up it will contain only
what you highlighted previously, along with the proper attribution.

I hope the above is intelligible.

pilo_ > writes:

> [...]
>
> I hope the above is intelligible.

Would you mind if I use that as my new signature?

/Lew
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

Lewis Perin wrote:
> "Blair P. Houghton" > writes:
>
> > [...]
> > As for context, I recommend a threaded newsreader.
>
> I have one too.
>
> > I wouldn't post anywhere without one.
>
> Sorry, that doesn't get you off the hook.

There is no hook. Are you presuming to be the king of Usenet?

> When you reply to a long
> post that makes a number of points, it's only fair to your readers to
> make it clear which points you're responding to. To achieve that, I
> recommend replying inline to text you quote.

I do so when it's necessary and efficient, to me. When it's not,
I won't bother.

You're responsible for understanding what you're reading. I'm not
responsible for your misunderstanding it. I could cross-index
every word to the moment I learned it in school, and you could
still misunderstand the meanings of them. That's not my problem.
If you need more context than you got, you know where to find it.

--Blair

[Blair]
>As for context, I recommend a threaded newsreader.
[...]
[Blair]
>I do so when it's necessary and efficient, to me. When it's not,
>I won't bother.
[...]


This whole thread would be a great case study for an "Effective
Communication Skills" seminar.

"What we have here.... is a failure... to communicate"
(cant figure out how to put that southern drawl in there)

Not quoting pertinent points in a long thread is simply ineffective
communications. Consider these points:

1) It is a fallacy to "assume" that readers will have a threaded
Usenet client.

2) Don't assume that your audience is even Usenet savvy. The
proliferation of various http Usenet clients has opened the door to
many users who do not even know what the Usenet is, or for that matter
what a "thread" is.

3) Even if the reader does have a threaded client it is inconsiderate
to force them to sort through any number of previous posts just to
understand your context.

4) It is widely accepted and time honored "Netiquette" to judicially
quote the context in a threaded medium. Hundreds upon hundreds of
resources can be found that clearly document this, for instance
http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/repl.htm or
http://www.zedtoo.demon.co.uk/jcode/basic.html
and I highly recommend reading http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
in its entirety.

The bottom line is if your intended audience does not understand your
context then you are NOT communicating effectively. If you don't care
about communicating effectively then why bother at all?

That's my 2 cents worth,

Mike Petro
www.pu-erh.net





Mike Petro
http://www.pu-erh.net

>This whole thread would be a great case study for an "Effective
>Communication Skills" seminar.

Only in the sense that nobody quite understands that
I'm perfectly happy with not making things easier for you.

If you need a threaded newsreader, get one.

--Blair

On 8 Jan 2006 20:44:27 -0800, "Blair P. Houghton"
> wrote:

>>This whole thread would be a great case study for an "Effective
>>Communication Skills" seminar.
>
>Only in the sense that nobody quite understands that
>I'm perfectly happy with not making things easier for you.
>
>If you need a threaded newsreader, get one.
>
>--Blair

Actually I have one of the finest threaded newsreaders available for
the Windows platform (Forte Agent). Unfortunately it does not
compensate for inconsiderate people who stubbornly refuse to observe
proper protocol.

On the other hand "Forte Agent" does include a very effective
killfile. You see, if you don't care enough to even attempt to observe
proper netiquette then I really don't care what you have to say......
Mike Petro
http://www.pu-erh.net

Ya know, Blair, I started out this little flame war on your side. I agree
that Google can be cumbersome. Unfortunetly the below comment "I'm perfectly
happy with not making things easier for you" turned the tide. You could have
kept me rooting on your side (whether you cared I did or not) by simply
being polite. I'm sorry Google groups makes that difficult for you as well.
Also "If you need a threaded newsreader, get one." is an interesting one,
seeing as I have a threaded newsreader, and I still have no clue to what
your original post was in reference to.
Marlene
> >This whole thread would be a great case study for an "Effective
>>Communication Skills" seminar.
>
> Only in the sense that nobody quite understands that
> I'm perfectly happy with not making things easier for you.
>
> If you need a threaded newsreader, get one.
>
> --Blair
>

dickface

1/7/06

> dickface

Great comment, crymad! No need for context
here?

Best,
michael

Michael /9/06


> 1/7/06
>
>> dickface
>
> Great comment, crymad! No need for context
> here?
>
> Best,
> michael
>

Meant: "No need for context here!"
The above is a typo.

Michael

Apologizing in advance for the tedium,

"Blair P. Houghton" > writes:

> Lewis Perin wrote:
> > "Blair P. Houghton" > writes:
> >
> > > [...]
> > > As for context, I recommend a threaded newsreader.
> >
> > I have one too.
> >
> > > I wouldn't post anywhere without one.
> >
> > Sorry, that doesn't get you off the hook.
>
> There is no hook. Are you presuming to be the king of Usenet?

I was trying to be the slightest bit colorful in warning that your
position was still vulnerable to the argument immediately following.

> > When you reply to a long post that makes a number of points, it's
> > only fair to your readers to make it clear which points you're
> > responding to. To achieve that, I recommend replying inline to
> > text you quote.
>
> I do so when it's necessary and efficient, to me. When it's not, I
> won't bother.

So your readers' needs are unworthy of consideration?

> You're responsible for understanding what you're reading. I'm not
> responsible for your misunderstanding it. I could cross-index every
> word to the moment I learned it in school, and you could still
> misunderstand the meanings of them. That's not my problem. If you
> need more context than you got, you know where to find it.

That sounds like a Yes.

/Lew
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

Girls, when you're done trying to pretend that I am required to
care what you think, we'll get on with things.

--Blair

[Blair]
> Girls, when you're done trying to pretend that I am required to
> care what you think, we'll get on with things.

[Michael]
Actually, most of the participants in this
thread have been boys. Lew made a
cogent argument, and a friendly one,
saying that efficiency and common
courtesy suggest that you place a little
contextualizing quote to carry the
discussion forward in the post you
are writing. Pilo suggested a viable
and easy way to do this. As I said before,
we can agree to differ, but at this point
your credibility is shot to hell.

The discussion though has been
valuable for me and perhaps others
in that we are now more conscious of the
need to quote a bit to create an easily
assessible context for comments we
might make.