FoodBanter.com

FoodBanter.com (https://www.foodbanter.com/)
-   Tea (https://www.foodbanter.com/tea/)
-   -   Earl Grey (https://www.foodbanter.com/tea/78162-earl-grey.html)

pilo_ 06-01-2006 08:00 PM

[contextualizing posts [was: Google Groups complaint]
 
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.

Lewis Perin 06-01-2006 08:31 PM

Cosmic wisdom (was: [contextualizing posts [was: Google Groups complaint])
 
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

Mike Petro 07-01-2006 02:07 PM

Google Groups complaint (was Earl Grey)
 

[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

crymad 07-01-2006 08:30 PM

Google Groups complaint (was Earl Grey)
 
dickface

Lewis Perin 07-01-2006 08:46 PM

Google Groups complaint (was Earl Grey)
 
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

Lewis Perin 07-01-2006 08:59 PM

context [was:"Google Groups complaint]
 
"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

oleg shteynbuk 08-01-2006 02:46 AM

Google Groups complaint (was Earl Grey)
 
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 donít 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 donít 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

Blair P. Houghton 09-01-2006 03:59 AM

Google Groups complaint (was Earl Grey)
 
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 P. Houghton 09-01-2006 04:44 AM

Google Groups complaint (was Earl Grey)
 
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


Michael Plant 09-01-2006 11:13 AM

Google Groups complaint (was Earl Grey)
 
1/7/06

dickface


Great comment, crymad! No need for context
here?

Best,
michael


Mike Petro 09-01-2006 11:15 AM

Google Groups complaint (was Earl Grey)
 
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

Michael Plant 09-01-2006 11:23 AM

Gloss on Contextualizing Posts - Lew's pretty much said it all
 
[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.






Michael Plant 09-01-2006 11:27 AM

Google Groups complaint (was Earl Grey)
 
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


Steve Hay 09-01-2006 11:48 AM

Google Groups complaint (was Earl Grey)
 
Michael Plant wrote:
Meant: "No need for context here!"
The above is a typo.


I'm Ron Burgundy?

Marlene Wood 09-01-2006 06:49 PM

Google Groups complaint (was Earl Grey)
 
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





All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter