Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Barbecue (alt.food.barbecue) Discuss barbecue and grilling--southern style "low and slow" smoking of ribs, shoulders and briskets, as well as direct heat grilling of everything from burgers to salmon to vegetables. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:46:44 GMT, cl > wrote:
> >"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote: > >> Do it again, Pro. Come up with some ridiculous, meaningless >> "challenge" that you think will finally get me to tell you what you >> want to know. > >Ridiculous in just asking for proof of the statement that you do more >than remedial tasks at the state college? Especially when you protest to >be much greater. My God but you're predictable. You did exactly as you were told. What should I make you do next? HINT: Request for Consideration! >> Bear in mind, though, that doing the same thing over and >> over while expecting different results is one sign of insanity. > >It is the first time kevie that I asked your for your pubs. Hearing >voices and false reality is a sign of insanity too you know? But hey, >with you I'd just apply Occam's razor and decide you just a liar. Why are you talking like Tarzan, Pro? Lie about what? Of course, you can furnish some message IDs, right? |
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote: > > On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:46:44 GMT, cl > wrote: > > > >"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote: > My God but you're predictable. You did exactly as you were told. What > should I make you do next? I think you should convince me to call you a clueless dipshit. Damn you did it again! > HINT: Request for Consideration! Yeah, keep trying to pass it off Prof. You are transparent and your constant reiteration of RFC and your mistakened understanding of its meaning is obvious. > >> Bear in mind, though, that doing the same thing over and > >> over while expecting different results is one sign of insanity. > > > >It is the first time kevie that I asked your for your pubs. Hearing > >voices and false reality is a sign of insanity too you know? But hey, > >with you I'd just apply Occam's razor and decide you just a liar. > > Why are you talking like Tarzan, Pro? NOTE: For those keeping tabs on Kevinisms, be sure to register "talking like Tarzan". We need to also include "mouthbreather" too. > Lie about what? Of course, you can furnish some message IDs, right? Are you a black man today? I could and have. While that copy machine is churning out SHRM flyer for the HR kids, you can do a google for the IDs. -CAL |
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:13:33 GMT, cl > wrote:
>> HINT: Request for Consideration! > >Yeah, keep trying to pass it off Prof. You are transparent and your >constant reiteration of RFC and your mistakened understanding of its >meaning is obvious. If 12 people tell you you're an ass, it's time to get fitted for a saddle. If even more people tell you -- often in words of one or two syllables -- that you've been trolled, then YHBT and YHL. You just cannot admit that all of ARK was laughing at you behind your back. Humorless git, aren't you? Guess I'll just have to troll you again. 'Tweren't at all difficult the first time. PS: Did you know that the word "gullible" isn't in a single dictionary? |
|
|||
|
|||
Steve House wrote:
> And this should bother me exactly why? Maybe because Matthew is a valued part of this group, he knows what he is talking about, and you do not? -- Dave Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que http://davebbq.com/ |
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 18:44:37 -0500, "Steve House"
> wrote: >I stand corrected, you did say "...please stop top posting ..." so perhaps >"strongly worded request" would be more accurate. And even the phrase >"strongly worded" is an assumption of your emotional state when you wrote >it. But based on the fact that you mentioned at all, or actually even give >a damn whether someone top posts or not, gives me pause to wonder why it >would even be an issue? The way in which Usenet posts are propogated makes it almost certain that someone will see your reply before seeing the message you're replying to. In such cases, the reader has to scroll down to figure out what the hell you're talking about. Even if readers have seen the original message, they might not recall it with any accuracy, meaning that they have to scroll down to refresh their memory, as they will have to do if they wish to know what part of the original post you are replying. That's rude, because it implies that your time and convenience are more important than that of your reader. >Perhaps it is the tradition in this group to >interleave post, but the negative response to someone top posting, even >taking notice of it or mentioning it at all, demonstrates an unwillingness >to recognize that the circumstances under which the dislike of top posting >evolved no longer exist. See above. Same answer.. > I suggest that while interleaved posting was the >probably the "best way" 20 years ago, today the advantages of top posting >outweigh its disadvantages most of the time. (See how much more readable >this is than it would be if I broke it into several fragments? As a writer >I'm sure you recognize that a coherent paragraph beats fragmented sentences >ever time. You have a bad habit of trying to bolster your argument with loaded language and false premises, beginning with your claim that I "ordered" someone not to top-post. Now you want to pretend that the argument is about "coherent paragraphs" versus "fragmented sentences." You are doing the rhetorical equivalent of waving something shiny through the air and saying, "Hey! Look over here!" It ain't working, so you might as well stop doing it. See that big chunk of text up there? That's a coherent paragraph. So is the one-line paragraph that follows. They are also interleaved to make clear that they are responses to some specific PART of what you posted. You cannot pretend you don't understand that making clear that connection is the whole purpose of interleaving, unlike in your earlier attempt to portray interleaving as confusing by randomly inserting your comments into the original post and even into my .sig. > And as a tech writer, I'm sure you've read letters, comments, >and rebuttles in journals such as Nature for years - why should Usenet >posting be structured differently? ) Because every medium has its own conventions and because every writing situation requires its own strategies for achieving a particular purpose while meeting the readers' needs for information. Just because many media use similar conventions and many writing situations call for similar strategies is no reason to insist that they all do so. After nearly 20 years of writing and editing and teaching thousands of people about writing and editing, I think I can recognize an effective rhetorical strategy when I see one -- and top-posting and full-quoting is not an effective rhetorical strategy, not by a long shot. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
... > Steve House wrote: > >> And this should bother me exactly why? > > Maybe because Matthew is a valued part of this group, he knows what he is > talking about, and you do not? > > -- > Dave > Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que > http://davebbq.com/ > I seeee - one should simply sit quietly at the feet of the Usenet Masters, emulate their every style, and learn. Are you suggesting top posters have nothing of value to contribute to the group, simply by virtue of their top posting? Just speaking for myself, the issue is not one of whether top posting is better or worse than other styles. Frankly, for reasons I won't repeat, I think top posting and reasonably full quoting leads to a more coehesive exchange of ideas. But in terms of what others post I could care less one way or the other. The real issue in my argument is the attempt to enforce a standard that has no bearing at all on the quality of the group, with no other justification than "that's the way it's supposed to be done." I have to wonder why people such as Matthew and Kevin actually CARE so much about something so trivial. Now if it was something like seriously suggesting smoking a brisket over smouldering flowers of sulphur, it would make sense to strongly criticise such foolishness. But to get so worked up over whether additions to a thread should be at the top or the bottom of a reply message, caring SO MUCH about it as to castigate (excuse me, "correct") those who do it differently, seems more than a bit .... obsessive, wouldn't you agree? >"... he knows what he is talking about and you do not." As to 'que, I'll grant that point no contest - I have no idea of the extent of Matthew's or Kevin's or your culinary knowledge but in comparison with many here I'll freely admit my knowledge of the fine art of barbeque is very likely rudimentary. That's why I'm here - to extend it. But in terms of knowing what Usenet is about and how to use it effectively, that is another story. I mentioned once before that I've been an active contributor, on close to a daily basis, with Usenet and similar discussion groups and SIGs in other online networks since 1982 and today I consider active particpation in several groups to be an essential part of my professional life. In terms of what written structures work to communicate most effectively in the online community and what doesn't, I respectfully claim my qualifications are second to none. And as an FYI, in many of the various professional business and technical interest topic areas top-posting is the norm rather than the exception, for the very reason that the discussions merit more serious attention than is possible with a snip of text here and a spot of text there. Steve |
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:39:04 -0500, "Steve House"
> wrote: > I have >to wonder why people such as Matthew and Kevin actually CARE so much about >something so trivial. Apparently you missed my post in which I explained at some length why top-posting is both stupid and rude. The fact that you failed to see my post only proves part of my point, that the way messages are propogated almost guarantees that someone will have not seen the message to which you are replying, forcing them to scroll down to find out what the hell you're talking about. Or did you already see me say that, but chose to ignore it? Either way, here it is again: On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 18:44:37 -0500, "Steve House" > wrote: >I stand corrected, you did say "...please stop top posting ..." so perhaps >"strongly worded request" would be more accurate. And even the phrase >"strongly worded" is an assumption of your emotional state when you wrote >it. But based on the fact that you mentioned at all, or actually even give >a damn whether someone top posts or not, gives me pause to wonder why it >would even be an issue? The way in which Usenet posts are propogated makes it almost certain that someone will see your reply before seeing the message you're replying to. In such cases, the reader has to scroll down to figure out what the hell you're talking about. Even if readers have seen the original message, they might not recall it with any accuracy, meaning that they have to scroll down to refresh their memory, as they will have to do if they wish to know what part of the original post you are replying. That's rude, because it implies that your time and convenience are more important than that of your reader. >Perhaps it is the tradition in this group to >interleave post, but the negative response to someone top posting, even >taking notice of it or mentioning it at all, demonstrates an unwillingness >to recognize that the circumstances under which the dislike of top posting >evolved no longer exist. See above. Same answer.. > I suggest that while interleaved posting was the >probably the "best way" 20 years ago, today the advantages of top posting >outweigh its disadvantages most of the time. (See how much more readable >this is than it would be if I broke it into several fragments? As a writer >I'm sure you recognize that a coherent paragraph beats fragmented sentences >ever time. You have a bad habit of trying to bolster your argument with loaded language and false premises, beginning with your claim that I "ordered" someone not to top-post. Now you want to pretend that the argument is about "coherent paragraphs" versus "fragmented sentences." You are doing the rhetorical equivalent of waving something shiny through the air and saying, "Hey! Look over here!" It ain't working, so you might as well stop doing it. See that big chunk of text up there? That's a coherent paragraph. So is the one-line paragraph that follows. They are also interleaved to make clear that they are responses to some specific PART of what you posted. You cannot pretend you don't understand that making clear that connection is the whole purpose of interleaving, unlike in your earlier attempt to portray interleaving as confusing by randomly inserting your comments into the original post and even into my .sig. > And as a tech writer, I'm sure you've read letters, comments, >and rebuttles in journals such as Nature for years - why should Usenet >posting be structured differently? ) Because every medium has its own conventions and because every writing situation requires its own strategies for achieving a particular purpose while meeting the readers' needs for information. Just because many media use similar conventions and many writing situations call for similar strategies is no reason to insist that they all do so. After nearly 20 years of writing and editing and teaching thousands of people about writing and editing, I think I can recognize an effective rhetorical strategy when I see one -- and top-posting and full-quoting is not an effective rhetorical strategy, not by a long shot. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
... > On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:39:04 -0500, "Steve House" > > wrote: > >> I have >>to wonder why people such as Matthew and Kevin actually CARE so much about >>something so trivial. > > Apparently you missed my post in which I explained at some length why > top-posting is both stupid and rude. The fact that you failed to see > my post only proves part of my point, that the way messages are > propogated almost guarantees that someone will have not seen the > message to which you are replying, forcing them to scroll down to find > out what the hell you're talking about. > > Or did you already see me say that, but chose to ignore it? Either > way, here it is again: > I saw it and read it completely but chose not to dissect it and reply to it. As I said, the crux of the discussion IMO is not whether it is better or worse to top post. The issue is that fact that some people actually CARE about something so trivial as to ignore the substance of the messages and jump on the poster's form in creating them. My post was not intended to say you "should" top post. Rather it was to say you should stop making an issue of it by admonishing top posters you encounter to stop the practice. Your preference for interleaved posting is your preference and as such is neither good nor bad, it simply is your preference. You go to great lengths to try to demonstrate why it is "stupid" and "rude" to top post but in the end it really is only a prejudice that is no more rational than any other prejudice. Their preference for top posting is neither good nor bad, it is simply their preference. There are also strong arguments in favor of top posting which you choose to turn a blind eye to, especially in longer threads. (Witness above where you have to count the >>> to determine what you said and what I said.) Both methods work, both methods can get the point across. Would it be such a great sacrifice to ignore it when you encounter it and focus on the substance of the message? I find it odd that you feel so strongly about it that you feel compelled to get everyone else to follow your example. It costs you nothing to read posts in either style. So why bother suggesting to top posters that they revise their errant ways and instead let evolution take its natural course? Steve House |
|
|||
|
|||
Steve House wrote:
> The issue is that fact that some people > actually CARE about something so trivial as to ignore the substance > of the messages and jump on the poster's form in creating them. The issue is, Steve, that most folks here have dealt with this issue many times and the message is the same: The text and substance needs to be readable and coherent in relation to previous posts. Function IS a matter of form for a text-based medium. > My > post was not intended to say you "should" top post. Rather it was to > say you should stop making an issue of it by admonishing top posters > you encounter to stop the practice. And yet you make it an issue that readability --- or rather the lack thereof --- is not an issue. > Your preference for interleaved > posting is your preference and as such is neither good nor bad, it > simply is your preference. Wrongo. It is gooooooood. Your equivalency argument is meaningless, and indeed, demonstrates an absurd self-centerdness. > You go to great lengths to try to > demonstrate why it is "stupid" and "rude" to top post but in the end > it really is only a prejudice that is no more rational than any other > prejudice. Wow. The sad, simple truth is, you actually believe using a term like "prejudice", in order to bolster your argument, is rational. ROTFLOL!!!!! > Their preference for top posting is neither good nor bad, > it is simply their preference. There you go with that equivalency nonsense again. Top posting makes coherent text in a thread incredibly difficult and tedious to follow, so it is not preferable. You keep trying to make what is an issue of readability, into an issue of morality. No wonder you are confused about the proper context in which a word like "prejudice" is properly used. > There are also strong arguments in > favor of top posting which you choose to turn a blind eye to, > especially in longer threads. Longer threads are far more subject to a new reader becoming lost as to context when top-posting is done. It also makes it difficult to determine just what point is being responded to for those following the thread. > (Witness above where you have to count > the >>> to determine what you said and what I said.) And just how is that avoided with top-posting? What you are now conflicted about is the issue of trimming the text of the post to which you are responding of superflous text. But then, since you don't see this as a need when you top-post, you have two issues that make a top-posted mesage difficult to follow: The answer preceeding the question or statement; And the statement or question to which you are responding being buried under tons of verbage. > Both methods > work, both methods can get the point across. That's not the issue. The issue is which method makes it more difficult or less difficult to keep the text in contextual relationship. > Would it be such a > great sacrifice to ignore it when you encounter it and focus on the > substance of the message? The better question is this: Wouldn't a reader want to insure the readability of his post? Is his selfish need to top-post more important than the proper conventions established to make a text-based medium more --- not less --- comprehensible? > I find it odd that you feel so strongly > about it that you feel compelled to get everyone else to follow your > example. And yet, you feel even more compelled to get everyone to follow your anarchist tendencies by blathering on about equivalencies and prejudice. What you have spent so much time defending makes it much harder for a thread to be followed. Ya know, it ain't Kevin. Take a poll asking this NG what format they prefer. I did when another person a couple of years back presented the same illogical arguments you now are doing, claiming that it was only one or two folks trying to enslave others to obey their will. Ya know what? Except for four or so individuals, everyone else preferred interleaved or bottom posting. So go ahead, take a poll. See if this is only a Kevin thing. > It costs you nothing to read posts in either style. Yes it does. It costs me more time and consternation trying to figure out just what the heck the top-poster is really responding to. > So why > bother suggesting to top posters that they revise their errant ways > and instead let evolution take its natural course? Only someone defending top-posting would propose an evolutionary change PRIOR to the mitigating force. Evolution is always preceeded by some force that requires such a change. -- Dave Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que http://davebbq.com/ |
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 13:59:54 -0500, "Steve House"
> wrote: >So why bother suggesting to top posters that they revise their errant ways >and instead let evolution take its natural course? Are you being willfully obtuse, or do you really not understand that I think top-posting is rude because it implies that the poster's time and convenience is more important than that of his readers'? Top-posters are nearly always also full-quoters, too lazy or stupid to snip irrelevant text or move their cursor to where it belongs. But I've told you that already, about a half-dozen times. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message ... > top-posting is rude because it implies that the poster's time > and convenience is more important than that of his readers' Is that any less rude than you thinking that your constant inane and off topic blathering is beneficial to this NG? You have to be one of the most self absorbed ****tards on Usenet. You can simply KF top posters, but your insatiable ego forever compels you to respond and perpetuate this useless, pointless bullshit. |
|
|||
|
|||
B wrote:
> Is that any less rude than you thinking that your constant inane and > off topic blathering is beneficial to this NG? As opposed to your on-topic blathering? > You have to be one of > the most self absorbed ****tards on Usenet. Oh, I somehow doubt that. Self-absorption seems to be the domain of those who only care about ignoring useful standards intended to keep Usenet from becoming Uselessnet. > You can simply KF top > posters, That's assuming that the top-poster actually wants to be kill-filed rather than be told that the majority does not like top-posting. And the majority will KF the unrepentant top-poster. Why would you want to let folks be kf'd rather than getting them on-board? > but your insatiable ego forever compels you to respond and > perpetuate this useless, pointless bullshit. And your ego and perpetuation is above reproach in this regard? Why not KF Kevin instead of ranting about him? I doubt that Kevin is going away anytime soon. -- Dave Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que http://davebbq.com/ |
|
|||
|
|||
Duwop wrote:
> Goll darn, that interleaved stuff read just like a back and forth > conversation! > > Dave, he's not interested in the topic, just in arguing. Yeah, I know..... I'm a bit bored right now. My crew is so well-honed at this point that I can leave 'em be between lunch and dinner time. My taxes are done; I've finished putting together a new ad campaign, as well as getting copies of our menus into the local motels. There are no maintenance issues right now. So I'm relaxing abit, hence catching up with you guys a bit. It's good to see you all. -- Dave Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que http://davebbq.com/ |
|
|||
|
|||
Duwop wrote:
> Goll darn, that interleaved stuff read just like a back and forth > conversation! > > Dave, he's not interested in the topic, just in arguing. Yeah, I know..... I'm a bit bored right now. My crew is so well-honed at this point that I can leave 'em be between lunch and dinner time. My taxes are done; I've finished putting together a new ad campaign, as well as getting copies of our menus into the local motels. There are no maintenance issues right now. So I'm relaxing abit, hence catching up with you guys a bit. It's good to see you all. -- Dave Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que http://davebbq.com/ |
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 15:17:32 -0800, "Dave Bugg" >
wrote: > Why not KF >Kevin instead of ranting about him? Oh, you caught that too, huh? Smoke came out of the back of my Irony Meter when I got to the part where he was telling me to killfile people whose posts I didn't want to read, all the while telling me how much he dislikes reading my posts. I don't think he's the sharpest Crayola in the 48-piece fun pack. > I doubt that Kevin is going away anytime soon. Why should I? I'm enjoying myself, same as you. |
|
|||
|
|||
Duwop wrote:
> I won't ask if your glad you did it, not just yet. Remind me to at > about the 18 month mark would ya? Sure will, but right now I just wonder what took me so long to do this. :-) -- Dave Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que http://davebbq.com/ |
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote: > > On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 15:17:32 -0800, "Dave Bugg" > > wrote: > > > Why not KF > >Kevin instead of ranting about him? > > Oh, you caught that too, huh? And why do you feel you must blather on rather than just KFing topposting full quoters? > I don't think he's the sharpest Crayola in the 48-piece fun pack. Dude come on, you can't even wait a week before using the Crayola line again? -CAL |
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote: > > On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 15:17:32 -0800, "Dave Bugg" > > wrote: > > > Why not KF > >Kevin instead of ranting about him? > > Oh, you caught that too, huh? And why do you feel you must blather on rather than just KFing topposting full quoters? > I don't think he's the sharpest Crayola in the 48-piece fun pack. Dude come on, you can't even wait a week before using the Crayola line again? -CAL |
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:47:25 GMT, cl > wrote:
> >"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote: >> >> On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 15:17:32 -0800, "Dave Bugg" > >> wrote: >> >> > Why not KF >> >Kevin instead of ranting about him? >> >> Oh, you caught that too, huh? > >And why do you feel you must blather on rather than just KFing >topposting full quoters? > Knowing that it makes you stammer and sniff and cry like a scared schoolgirl is reason enough. Keep it up, Pro. > > >> I don't think he's the sharpest Crayola in the 48-piece fun pack. > >Dude come on, you can't even wait a week before using the Crayola line >again? > And do continue to hang on my every word. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
For Sale Brand New Apple Iphone 3g 16gb, Blackberry Curve 8900, Blackberry Storm 9500 | General Cooking | |||
Cell Phone Or Blackberry?.(accessory blackberry pearl) | Winemaking | |||
Cell Phone Or Blackberry?.(accessory blackberry pearl) | Wine | |||
blackberry pie | General Cooking |