Those of you who use Google Groups instead of a real newsreader need to
start quoting a bit of the text you are replying to. Since most newsreaders
are configured to delete previously read messages in a thread, it appears
that you are replying to something out of thin air. Please take the time to
do it right.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

They won't do it, Dave

BOB
see how annoying it is?

On 2006-01-02, Dave Bugg > wrote:
> Those of you who use Google Groups instead of a real newsreader need to
> start quoting a bit of the text you are replying to. Since most newsreaders
> are configured to delete previously read messages in a thread, it appears
> that you are replying to something out of thin air. Please take the time to
> do it right.


Here's some more info on the subject:


-----------

WHY SHOULD I CARE?

Usenet etiquette (or Net Etiquette, or Netiquette) evolved as a way
to insure smooth communication between people using literally
hundreds of different systems, on different hardware.

You see certain message headers a certain way on Google Groups but
that's not the way everyone else sees them. You see certain
threading characteristics in Outlook Express, but that's not the way
everyone else sees them. You may be able to go back and read
articles you've already read in Mozilla Thunderbird, but some
readers "delete" messages by default once they've been read. There
are literally hundreds of thousands of different configurations of
different newsreaders.

In days gone by, it was often the case that you could read the
answer posted on Tuesday before you ever saw the question posted on
Monday. With today's higher network speeds, this is pretty rare,
but it pays to keep in mind that on servers off the beaten track,
it's still possible.

What do you make of a post consisting of the words, "I don't think I
agree in general. Point 3) seems especially nonsensical though I
actually do agree with 5)." Without context, such a post is
completely meaningless. Netiquette helps prevent such lack of
context.

For these reasons and many more, it is a really,
really, really good idea to learn and follow the
rules of Netiquette.

One of the better essays on this subject was posted
to news.newusers.questions. Although it covers e-mail
as well as usenet, it should be a must read for everyone
posting via google. Must read for anyone new to
usenet. Recommended even for old hands:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2551276C

For Google users:

You can quote text by clicking "Show Options" before
hitting "Reply." This will include the appropriate
attribution, as well as including the quoted text.

Simple rule to know what to keep and what to snip:
If it clarifies the article when viewed as a stand-
alone post, keep it.
If it clutters the post with extraneous content, lose
it.

When you hit "Post Message" it sometimes takes
while. Be patient. Don't repost when you don't see
your article after 30 seconds.

Remember, Netiquette is, at its root, all about clarity
in communication.

----------

nb

wait....what?

--
..:Heather:.
www.velvet-c.com
Step off, beyotches, I'm the roflpimp!

Dave Bugg wrote:
> Those of you who use Google Groups instead of a real newsreader need to
> start quoting a bit of the text you are replying to. Since most newsreaders
> are configured to delete previously read messages in a thread, it appears
> that you are replying to something out of thin air. Please take the time to
> do it right.

Here's something useful - a how-to.

Google groups users: don't hit the obviuos 'reply' button. Instead, hit
'options', then 'reply' there.

Then, trim some of the text (highlight and delete) so you're not
echoing 1000 lines just to add a 'me too'.

PS: My ISP (Rogers.com) just dropped news feeds. No reduction in
charges for their 'service', of course.)

>
> For Google users:
>
> You can quote text by clicking "Show Options" before
> hitting "Reply." This will include the appropriate
> attribution, as well as including the quoted text.
>
> Simple rule to know what to keep and what to snip:
> If it clarifies the article when viewed as a stand-
> alone post, keep it.
> If it clutters the post with extraneous content, lose
> it.
>
> When you hit "Post Message" it sometimes takes
> while. Be patient. Don't repost when you don't see
> your article after 30 seconds.
>
> Remember, Netiquette is, at its root, all about clarity
> in communication.
>
> ----------
>
> nb
-----------------
Good information. But since your post was very long, additional advice
to Highlight, or blackout extraneous parts of your posting (which I
have done here) and then delete that, would have been helpful. Thank
you for the reminder to click on "Show Options" Very useful. Thank
you very much.
Nancree

Dave Bugg wrote:
> Those of you who use Google Groups instead of a real newsreader need to
> start quoting a bit of the text you are replying to. Since most newsreaders
> are configured to delete previously read messages in a thread, it appears
> that you are replying to something out of thin air. Please take the time to
> do it right.
>
> --
> Dave
> www.davebbq.com
I had no idea. I have wondered why so many people repeat quotes so
much...Thanks Dave![on my screen I can go back to the original
topic,and read all messages applicable to said 1st message..]

BOB wrote:
> They won't do it, Dave
>
> BOB
> see how annoying it is?

Exactly. I'm posting this from Google Groups (GG) to demonstrate how
easy it is to post correctly according to usenet protocol. As was
stated, if a GGr wishes to post a reply, click on the "Show Options"
button. Then click on "Reply". The correct usenet posting format will
be preserved; and bonus points will be awarded if extraneous text is
deleted.

I would hat to see GG users become the next itieration of AOL and WebTV
---- those users learned the hard way.

davebugg wrote:
> Exactly. I'm posting this from Google Groups (GG) to demonstrate how
> easy it is to post correctly according to usenet protocol. As was
> stated, if a GGr wishes to post a reply, click on the "Show Options"
> button. Then click on "Reply". The correct usenet posting format will
> be preserved; and bonus points will be awarded if extraneous text is
> deleted.
>
> I would hat to see GG users become the next itieration of AOL and WebTV
> ---- those users learned the hard way.


I use Google whether on the laptop or the rare occasions I use webtv.
I think some of the webtv posters that venture in here find it through
the webtv homepage entitled "Discussions." I think they believe when
they find this or any other group they are on the webtv firewalled
groups. I've seen a few complain they can't find the topic they had
posted to just a few minutes ago. This and all Google Groups look
entirely different on webtv. I can't speak for the AOL folks.

notbob wrote:
> On 2006-01-02, Dave Bugg > wrote:
> > Those of you who use Google Groups instead of a real newsreader need to
> > start quoting a bit of the text you are replying to. Since most newsreaders
> > are configured to delete previously read messages in a thread, it appears
> > that you are replying to something out of thin air. Please take the time to
> > do it right.
>
>
> Here's some more info on the subject:
>
>
> -----------
>
> WHY SHOULD I CARE?
>
> Usenet etiquette (or Net Etiquette, or Netiquette) evolved as a way
> to insure smooth communication between people using literally
> hundreds of different systems, on different hardware.
>
> You see certain message headers a certain way on Google Groups but
> that's not the way everyone else sees them. You see certain
> threading characteristics in Outlook Express, but that's not the way
> everyone else sees them. You may be able to go back and read
> articles you've already read in Mozilla Thunderbird, but some
> readers "delete" messages by default once they've been read. There
> are literally hundreds of thousands of different configurations of
> different newsreaders.

Thunderbird should probably become the standard because it's built by
consciencious people who aren't in any way motivated by profit. One of
these days I'll probably send them money. It was a few years before I
sent any money to my public radio station
>
> In days gone by, it was often the case that you could read the
> answer posted on Tuesday before you ever saw the question posted on
> Monday. With today's higher network speeds, this is pretty rare,
> but it pays to keep in mind that on servers off the beaten track,
> it's still possible.
>
> What do you make of a post consisting of the words, "I don't think I
> agree in general. Point 3) seems especially nonsensical though I
> actually do agree with 5)." Without context, such a post is
> completely meaningless. Netiquette helps prevent such lack of
> context.
>
> For these reasons and many more, it is a really,
> really, really good idea to learn and follow the
> rules of Netiquette.
>
> One of the better essays on this subject was posted
> to news.newusers.questions. Although it covers e-mail
> as well as usenet, it should be a must read for everyone
> posting via google. Must read for anyone new to
> usenet. Recommended even for old hands:
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2551276C
>
> For Google users:
>
> You can quote text by clicking "Show Options" before
> hitting "Reply." This will include the appropriate
> attribution, as well as including the quoted text.

Yes, with Google Groups you should ALWAYS choose "Show Options,"
instead of just using the "Reply" button. Google should do away with
that button. Also, their newsfeed doesn't allow one to see all posts.
I can't see my own posts through my ISP's newsclient, nor those of a
friend.
C'mon Google. Don't be evil.
>
> Simple rule to know what to keep and what to snip:
> If it clarifies the article when viewed as a stand-
> alone post, keep it.
> If it clutters the post with extraneous content, lose
> it.
>
> When you hit "Post Message" it sometimes takes
> while. Be patient. Don't repost when you don't see
> your article after 30 seconds.
>
> Remember, Netiquette is, at its root, all about clarity
> in communication.
>
Thanks. I couldn't have said it better myself.

All your efforts will probably do little good, and I bet someone will
top post a reply

> ----------
>
> nb

--Bryan

BoboBonobo wrote:

> ........, and I bet someone will
> top post a reply

ROTFLOL!!!

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Yeah, you tell 'em.

In article >,
"Dave Bugg" > wrote:

> Those of you who use Google Groups instead of a real newsreader need to
> start quoting a bit of the text you are replying to. Since most newsreaders
> are configured to delete previously read messages in a thread, it appears
> that you are replying to something out of thin air. Please take the time to
> do it right.

Good advice. Note, however, that most newsreaders do not in fact delete
read messages, they just mark them as "read". The messages in fact live
on a newserver, and you *cannot* delete them, since they don't belong to
you. Your newsreader just keeps track of what you have read, and
doesn't show you anything you have already seen. There is often a way
to show them. I don't know how to do that in Outlook, though. Still,
if someone doesn't quote, I very seldom take the time to find out what
they are replying to.

--
Dan Abel

Petaluma, California, USA

In article .com>,
"itsjoannotjoann" > wrote:



> I use Google whether on the laptop or the rare occasions I use webtv.
> I think some of the webtv posters that venture in here find it through
> the webtv homepage entitled "Discussions." I think they believe when
> they find this or any other group they are on the webtv firewalled
> groups. I've seen a few complain they can't find the topic they had
> posted to just a few minutes ago. This and all Google Groups look
> entirely different on webtv. I can't speak for the AOL folks.

Time for the next step in your education, Joan. You figured out that
this isn't WebTV. Great. The next step is to figure out that this
isn't part of Google Groups either. And it's not AOL either.

All of those three are just ways to access these groups. And most of us
don't use any of those three methods to access newsgroups. I have a
dedicated program on my Mac for nothing but accessing newsgroups.

--
Dan Abel

Petaluma, California, USA

"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Dave Bugg" > wrote:
>
> > Those of you who use Google Groups instead of a real newsreader need to
> > start quoting a bit of the text you are replying to. Since most
newsreaders
> > are configured to delete previously read messages in a thread, it
appears
> > that you are replying to something out of thin air. Please take the
time to
> > do it right.
>
> Good advice. Note, however, that most newsreaders do not in fact delete
> read messages, they just mark them as "read". The messages in fact live
> on a newserver, and you *cannot* delete them, since they don't belong to
> you. Your newsreader just keeps track of what you have read, and
> doesn't show you anything you have already seen. There is often a way
> to show them. I don't know how to do that in Outlook, though. Still,
> if someone doesn't quote, I very seldom take the time to find out what
> they are replying to.
>
The newsreader is just downloading a local copy of messages from the news
server, so one can actually delete messages from their own local copy even
if the news server retains messages for a much longer period of time.

I use Outlook Express, and it works like this...

Automatic message deletion after being read:

1. Tools | Options...
2. Click the Maintenance tab
3. Make sure the Compact messages in the background checkbox is marked
4. The Delete read message bodies in newsgroups, checkbox, Delete news
messages <x> days after being downloaded checkbox, and Compact messages when
there is <x> percent wasted space option all become available for use.

Manual message deletion at any time:

1. Tools | Options...
2. Click the Maintenance tab
3. Click Clean Up Now
4a. Click Delete (to delete message headers and message bodies),

or

4b. Click Reset (to delete message headers and message bodies and flag the
newsgroup to re-download copies of all available messages on the news
server).

Also, as far as showing all messages in Outlook Express/Outlook Newsreader,
including those that have already been read:

1. Click on a newsgroup in the left pane
2. View | Current View > Show All Messages.

To re-hide read messages after showing all messages:

1a. View | Current View > Hide Read Messages

or

1b. View | Current View > Hide Read or Ignored Messages.

Use of option 1b is the recommended option if any discussion threads are
marked Ignore Conversation, or if any "killfile" (Blocked Senders/Ignore
Post) rules are set up.

In article >,
"Daniel W. Rouse Jr." > wrote:

> "Dan Abel" > wrote in message
> ...

> > Good advice. Note, however, that most newsreaders do not in fact delete
> > read messages, they just mark them as "read". The messages in fact live
> > on a newserver, and you *cannot* delete them, since they don't belong to
> > you. Your newsreader just keeps track of what you have read, and

> The newsreader is just downloading a local copy of messages from the news
> server, so one can actually delete messages from their own local copy even
> if the news server retains messages for a much longer period of time.
>
> I use Outlook Express, and it works like this...

Interesting. Since Outlook is much more used than my newsreader, please
delete what I posted from your minds.

:-)

My newsreader doesn't save a local copy of posts unless I explicitly
issue a SAVE command. There is no way I can see to tell it to
automatically save a local copy of what I read or download.

--
Dan Abel

Petaluma, California, USA

Dave Bugg wrote:
> Those of you who use Google Groups instead of a real newsreader need to
> start quoting a bit of the text you are replying to. Since most newsreaders
> are configured to delete previously read messages in a thread, it appears
> that you are replying to something out of thin air. Please take the time to
> do it right.
>
While I agree that they should take the time to do it right (which many
people have demonstrated is easy enough to do), perhaps those who have
their newsreaders set to automatically delete read posts should
reconfigure their settings too. Google Groups users don't need to make
up for your shortcomings. Real news readers are threaded for a reason
and you're defeting the purpose by automatically deleting read
messages. If you're interested in it, wait until the thread is dead or
has drifted afar to delete.

On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 19:11:49 -0500, " BOB" > wrote:

>Dave Bugg said:
>>Those of you who use Google Groups instead of a real newsreader need to
>>start quoting a bit of the text you are replying to. Since most newsreaders
>>are configured to delete previously read messages in a thread, it appears
>>that you are replying to something out of thin air. Please take the time to
>>do it right.

>They won't do it, Dave

>BOB
>see how annoying it is?

Well, I already knew. That's why I put Dave's words in. <g>
To be fair, a lot of Google Groups users either don't know how to
configure it to quote, or don't even know there is such an option.
(I don't know how, either--but I'd puzzle it out were I to post from
there)


--
-denny-
"Do your thoughts call ahead or do they just arrive at your mouth unannounced?"

"It's come as you are, baby."

-over the hedge

On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 22:00:57 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:

>Time for the next step in your education, Joan. You figured out that
>this isn't WebTV. Great. The next step is to figure out that this
>isn't part of Google Groups either. And it's not AOL either.
>
>All of those three are just ways to access these groups.

Correction. Two of them are. AOL dropped Usenet last spring.

--
-denny-
"Do your thoughts call ahead or do they just arrive at your mouth unannounced?"

"It's come as you are, baby."

-over the hedge

Dan Abel wrote:
> Time for the next step in your education, Joan. You figured out that
> this isn't WebTV. Great. The next step is to figure out that this
> isn't part of Google Groups either. And it's not AOL either.
>
> All of those three are just ways to access these groups. And most of us
> don't use any of those three methods to access newsgroups. I have a
> dedicated program on my Mac for nothing but accessing newsgroups.
>
> --
> Dan Abel
>
> Petaluma, California, USA


As has been posted here on numerous occasions, some ISP's do deliver
these groups to some of us as part of Google. You probably like your
dedicated program on your MAC and I have no complaints with my ISP
delivering these groups to me through Google. I can set it up to
deliver only the groups I am interested in and no searching. I can
access either the newest or the oldest message, search through messages
that are several years old, search for a specific message, etc. As
long as we're able to read the postings, why does it matter how they
are accessed?

"itsjoannotjoann" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dan Abel wrote:
>> Time for the next step in your education, Joan. You figured out that
>> this isn't WebTV. Great. The next step is to figure out that this
>> isn't part of Google Groups either. And it's not AOL either.
>>
>> All of those three are just ways to access these groups. And most of us
>> don't use any of those three methods to access newsgroups. I have a
>> dedicated program on my Mac for nothing but accessing newsgroups.
>>
>> --
>> Dan Abel
>>
>> Petaluma, California, USA
>
>
> As has been posted here on numerous occasions, some ISP's do deliver
> these groups to some of us as part of Google. You probably like your
> dedicated program on your MAC and I have no complaints with my ISP
> delivering these groups to me through Google. I can set it up to
> deliver only the groups I am interested in and no searching. I can
> access either the newest or the oldest message, search through messages
> that are several years old, search for a specific message, etc. As
> long as we're able to read the postings, why does it matter how they
> are accessed?
>

Man I would be soo mad if my ISP DARED try to pass off GOOGLE groups as
there newsfeed. That is just so WRONG!.

sf wrote:
> Dave Bugg wrote:
> > Those of you who use Google Groups instead of a real newsreader need to
> > start quoting a bit of the text you are replying to. Since most newsreaders
> > are configured to delete previously read messages in a thread, it appears
> > that you are replying to something out of thin air. Please take the time to
> > do it right.
> >
> While I agree that they should take the time to do it right (which many
> people have demonstrated is easy enough to do), perhaps those who have
> their newsreaders set to automatically delete read posts should
> reconfigure their settings too. Google Groups users don't need to make
> up for your shortcomings. Real news readers are threaded for a reason
> and you're defeting the purpose by automatically deleting read
> messages. If you're interested in it, wait until the thread is dead or
> has drifted afar to delete.

Google is a real newsreader, it can automatically quote and can be set
in threaded "tree" format... there are many options available with
Google, if one takes a few minutes to learn. The one thing no
newsreader does is *trim* extraneous garbage, that is a manual
operation requiring user IQ, something all yoose Newbies really ought
to obtain. I'm positive that better than 75% of rfc posters are
italian... if slovenly garbage dump posting is representitive of your
homes, which it most definitely is... I know those who don't trim their
posts, especially of *extraneous attribution data*, don't flush their
terlits either, and we all know italians don't even have flush terlits.

M-W

la·sa·gna

noun

Etymology: Italian lasagna, from Vulgar Latin lasania cooking pot, its
contents, from Latin _lasanum chamber pot_,
---

Dan Abel wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "itsjoannotjoann" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>I use Google whether on the laptop or the rare occasions I use webtv.
>>I think some of the webtv posters that venture in here find it through
>>the webtv homepage entitled "Discussions." I think they believe when
>>they find this or any other group they are on the webtv firewalled
>>groups. I've seen a few complain they can't find the topic they had
>>posted to just a few minutes ago. This and all Google Groups look
>>entirely different on webtv. I can't speak for the AOL folks.
>
>
> Time for the next step in your education, Joan. You figured out that
> this isn't WebTV. Great. The next step is to figure out that this
> isn't part of Google Groups either. And it's not AOL either.
>
> All of those three are just ways to access these groups. And most of us
> don't use any of those three methods to access newsgroups. I have a
> dedicated program on my Mac for nothing but accessing newsgroups.
>

actually, one cannot access newsgroups directly from AOL anymore.

--

saerah

http://anisaerah.blogspot.com/

"Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a
disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice."
-Baruch Spinoza

"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly
what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear
and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There
is another theory which states that this has already happened."
-Douglas Adams

itsjoannotjoann wrote:
> Dan Abel wrote:
>
>>Time for the next step in your education, Joan. You figured out that
>>this isn't WebTV. Great. The next step is to figure out that this
>>isn't part of Google Groups either. And it's not AOL either.
>>
>>All of those three are just ways to access these groups. And most of us
>>don't use any of those three methods to access newsgroups. I have a
>>dedicated program on my Mac for nothing but accessing newsgroups.
>>
>>--
>>Dan Abel

>>Petaluma, California, USA
>
>
>
> As has been posted here on numerous occasions, some ISP's do deliver
> these groups to some of us as part of Google. You probably like your
> dedicated program on your MAC and I have no complaints with my ISP
> delivering these groups to me through Google. I can set it up to
> deliver only the groups I am interested in and no searching. I can
> access either the newest or the oldest message, search through messages
> that are several years old, search for a specific message, etc. As
> long as we're able to read the postings, why does it matter how they
> are accessed?
>

your ISP has nothing to do with it. Usenet is not "part of Google".
Google runs an archive of Usenet that you can also use to post. Big
difference.

--

saerah

http://anisaerah.blogspot.com/

"Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a
disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice."
-Baruch Spinoza

"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly
what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear
and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There
is another theory which states that this has already happened."
-Douglas Adams

sf wrote:

> While I agree that they should take the time to do it right (which
> many people have demonstrated is easy enough to do), perhaps those
> who have their newsreaders set to automatically delete read posts
> should reconfigure their settings too.

Uh huh. Right. I was wondering when that silly notion would surface and by
whom.

> Google Groups users don't
> need to make up for your shortcomings. Real news readers are
> threaded for a reason and you're defeting the purpose by
> automatically deleting read messages. If you're interested in it,
> wait until the thread is dead or has drifted afar to delete.

Thanks for your observations and entertainment value.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"sf" > wrote

> While I agree that they should take the time to do it right (which many
> people have demonstrated is easy enough to do), perhaps those who have
> their newsreaders set to automatically delete read posts should
> reconfigure their settings too. Google Groups users don't need to make
> up for your shortcomings.

Shortcomings? A post that doesn't reference what the hell they are
talking about is not anyone else's shortcoming.

nancy

In article >,
"Laura\(wow\)" > wrote:


> Man I would be soo mad if my ISP DARED try to pass off GOOGLE groups as
> there newsfeed. That is just so WRONG!.

Why? As long as they are honest about it. My ISP has a newserver.
They don't try to read the newsgroups directly. They are subscribed to
multiple newsfeed sources.

Works for me.

I use Google for old stuff. Postings fall off my newserver after a
month or two.

--
Dan Abel

Petaluma, California, USA

In article .com>,
"itsjoannotjoann" > wrote:


> As has been posted here on numerous occasions, some ISP's do deliver
> these groups to some of us as part of Google. You probably like your
> dedicated program on your MAC and I have no complaints with my ISP
> delivering these groups to me through Google. I can set it up to
> deliver only the groups I am interested in and no searching. I can
> access either the newest or the oldest message, search through messages
> that are several years old, search for a specific message, etc. As
> long as we're able to read the postings, why does it matter how they
> are accessed?

It doesn't matter. I'm just anal.

:-)

Frankly, Google groups looks pretty good. You have access to the old
records, and the searching is much better. If I hadn't been using my
present newsreader since dirt was invented, I might be tempted to switch.

--
Dan Abel

Petaluma, California, USA

Dan Abel wrote:

>
> Frankly, Google groups looks pretty good. You have access to the old
> records, and the searching is much better. If I hadn't been using my
> present newsreader since dirt was invented, I might be tempted to switch.

I switched to Google (in desperation) when our ISP's newsfeed went down
for a few days...and I usually use Thunderbird. It didn't take me long
to figure out how to use the reply option that includes the previously
quoted text... and how to snip but that's just me. And I still use
it, if I feel like it...

Google is great for history, cos our newsfeed is set to dump old stuff
after 21 days (or something like that)... However, what does annoy me
is that Google carries history on groups like alt.this.sort.of.crap and
won't carry legit groups like aus.food because it "is not busy enough"
or some such excuse.

'Nuff said.

Cheers
Cathy(xyz)

itsjoannotjoann wrote:

> Dan Abel wrote:
> > Time for the next step in your education, Joan. You figured out
> that
> > this isn't WebTV. Great. The next step is to figure out that this
> > isn't part of Google Groups either. And it's not AOL either.
> >
> > All of those three are just ways to access these groups. And most
> of us
> > don't use any of those three methods to access newsgroups. I have a
>
> > dedicated program on my Mac for nothing but accessing newsgroups.
> >
> > --
> > Dan Abel
> >
> > Petaluma, California, USA
>
> As has been posted here on numerous occasions, some ISP's do deliver
> these groups to some of us as part of Google. You probably like your
> dedicated program on your MAC and I have no complaints with my ISP
> delivering these groups to me through Google. I can set it up to
> deliver only the groups I am interested in and no searching. I can
> access either the newest or the oldest message, search through
> messages
> that are several years old, search for a specific message, etc. As
> long as we're able to read the postings, why does it matter how they
> are accessed?

If i understand the original poster, accessing and responding to news
group posts through google lacks context, people respond with out quotes
from the post they are responding to, which can make it difficult. to
understand the context of or reason for the reply.

I personally find google unwieldy to read and post from, good for
finding that lost post and a great archive but i don't see why people
would use it for groups unless they had to. Even as a way to reduce
spam it seems extreme, in that there are easier ways.
---
JL

Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
> itsjoannotjoann wrote:
>
> > Dan Abel wrote:
> > > Time for the next step in your education, Joan. You figured out
> > that
> > > this isn't WebTV. Great. The next step is to figure out that this
> > > isn't part of Google Groups either. And it's not AOL either.
> > >
> > > All of those three are just ways to access these groups. And most
> > of us
> > > don't use any of those three methods to access newsgroups. I have a
> >
> > > dedicated program on my Mac for nothing but accessing newsgroups.
> >
> > As has been posted here on numerous occasions, some ISP's do deliver
> > these groups to some of us as part of Google. You probably like your
> > dedicated program on your MAC and I have no complaints with my ISP
> > delivering these groups to me through Google. I can set it up to
> > deliver only the groups I am interested in and no searching. I can
> > access either the newest or the oldest message, search through
> > messages
> > that are several years old, search for a specific message, etc. As
> > long as we're able to read the postings, why does it matter how they
> > are accessed?
>
> If i understand the original poster, accessing and responding to news
> group posts through google lacks context, people respond with out quotes
> from the post they are responding to, which can make it difficult. to
> understand the context of or reason for the reply.

If people aren't quoting with Google then they'd not quote with any
newsreader... Google quotes *everything automatically*, then all one
needs do is trim out all the superfluous drivel (which I didn't do here
just to make an example).

> I personally find google unwieldy to read and post from, good for
> finding that lost post and a great archive but i don't see why people
> would use it for groups unless they had to. Even as a way to reduce
> spam it seems extreme, in that there are easier ways.

The Google Newreader and Google Archives are separate entities, they
are separate links on the Google.com domain... you can access Archives
without ever subscribing to Newsgroups, or use the other Google search
engines independantly.

Google is no worse than any newsreader and better than most. I will
admit, however, that Google seemed unwieldly at first, same as using
any software one is unfamiliar with, but by the third day it felt as
comfortable as an old pair of shoes.

And Google makes improvements on an ongoing basis, nearly every day I
notice a new and better facility... and they notify of improvements via
email, and they're easy to contact... Google's Tech support is
excellent.

I admit I was a bit bummed out when AOL suddenly dropped Newsgroups
(people are naturally resistant to change) but once I tried Google I
quickly discovered that it's better.... with Google there is really no
reason to access newsgroups any other way, what point is there in
reinventing the wheel.

Again, those who aren't quoting wouldn't qoute regardless which
newsreader they used, there have always been lazy uncaring "hoo-ray"
for me *******s, always will be.

On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 18:19:51 -0600, notbob >
connected the dots and wrote:
~
~ For Google users:
~
~ You can quote text by clicking "Show Options" before
~ hitting "Reply." This will include the appropriate
~ attribution, as well as including the quoted text.
~

I've been cutting and pasting and adding angle brackets to many of my
replies.
Merci Beaucoup
Todah Rabah
Shukran
Tak
Mani Tak
Danke
Gracias
Domo Arigato
Obrigato
Thank you

maxine in ri

> > Dave Bugg wrote:
> > > Those of you who use Google Groups instead of a real newsreader need to
> > > start quoting a bit of the text you are replying to. Since most newsreaders
> > > are configured to delete previously read messages in a thread, it appears
> > > that you are replying to something out of thin air. Please take the time to
> > > do it right.

Dave (or whoever wrote what I snipped above), I recently rejoined
rec.food.cooking after a long hiatus... and since I didn't have a
newsreader, I ended up using Google Groups by default. But I am SO
glad you posted this, b/c you just got rid of a huge frustration for
me; I've been snipping by hand and adding in those little >>s (when I
remember)... I didn't even see the 'show options' button because it was
tiny, gray, and in a weird spot.

Thanks. Now I can avoid posting 'out of thin air'...

Karen MacInerney
Kitchen experimenter, family chauffeur, and culinary mystery author
www.karenmacinerney.com

Sheldon wrote:

> Again, those who aren't quoting wouldn't qoute regardless which
> newsreader they used, there have always been lazy uncaring "hoo-ray"
> for me *******s, always will be.


Yep, and these are the same pukes that will also insist on top -
posting...some idjits just *can't* (or won't) learn, they are gratuitously
clueless.

--
Best
Greg

Dan Abel wrote:
> All of those three are just ways to access these groups. And most of us
> don't use any of those three methods to access newsgroups. I have a
> dedicated program on my Mac for nothing but accessing newsgroups.

We do if our ISP can't figure out how to configure Tin to run
efficiiently. So, what is this Mac newsreader you are using? Does it
run on OS X? (Google is driving me nutz)

D.M.

In article . com>,
"D.A.Martinich" > wrote:

> Dan Abel wrote:
> > All of those three are just ways to access these groups. And most of us
> > don't use any of those three methods to access newsgroups. I have a
> > dedicated program on my Mac for nothing but accessing newsgroups.
>
> We do if our ISP can't figure out how to configure Tin to run
> efficiiently. So, what is this Mac newsreader you are using? Does it
> run on OS X? (Google is driving me nutz)

MT NewsWatcher

It's free!

http://www.smfr.org/mtnw/

What I really like about this program is that I've been using it for
years and so it's really familiar to me.

:-)

--
Dan Abel

Petaluma, California, USA

No, the problem is that the default "Reply" button doesn't add quoted
text to the edit box it opens up.

To get quoted text you have to click on "show options" next to the
poster's name, then use the "Reply" button that it exposes.

Then the quoting is there, done in the classical style.

And if you don't use a newsreader that does threading properly using
the References: header, that's your problem.

--Blair

>correctly according to usenet protocol

What the freaking **** are you talking about?

--Blair
"I didn't sign off on any such thing."

Karen MacInerney wrote:

> Thanks. Now I can avoid posting 'out of thin air'...

That's the spirit, Karen. Glad everyone joined in to help. :-)
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Blair P. Houghton wrote:

>>correctly according to usenet protocol
>
>
> What the freaking **** are you talking about?
>
> --Blair
> "I didn't sign off on any such thing."
>

See RFC 1855

http://rfc.net/rfc1855.html

When replying to a message, include enough original
material to be understood but no more.

The point being you should include relevant text from
the post you're replying to. Replying to a post without
quoting is bad netiquette.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com