"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

Ignore whatever you want, just don't come crying to me when you turn up
ignorant.

--Blair

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

Michael Plant wrote:
> Meant: "No need for context here!"
> The above is a typo.

I'm Ron Burgundy?

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.

>need to quote a bit to create an easily
>assessible context for comments we
>might make.

Which I do, where I find it necessary. When I don't, it likely wasn't.
Anyone wishing to determine what they can't contextualize is, again,
invited to use the "up one level" method on their newsreader rather
than writing a long and pointless post about nonexistent protocols.
In terms of economics, ****ing at me and starting this argument
was a hell of a lot more expensive than doing that.

--Blair
"I know which side my teacup is yak-buttered on."

P.S. Oh, and the "girls" crack was purely pejorative. My
apologies to any actual girls involved.